Take some responsibility people!

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Furthermore, Bush has utterly failed to take responsibility for the fact that Iraq was an unjustfied war. People are dying because of it.

Again, your opinion does not make it fact. Just because you think it was unjustified doesn't mean that Bush hasn't taken responsibility for it.

CsG

You sure about that? Everything I've seen lately is pointing the finger at "bad intelligence". Perhaps our intelligence sources really dropped the ball, I don't know. But I do know that we invaded Iraq based on WMDs that weren't really there, and as commander in chief, Bush has NOT taken responsibility, and the blame has instead been sort of placed on our intelligence services. Maybe it is deserved, but Bush has certainly not taken responsibility for it.

Bush should take responsibility for bad intel? WTF are you smoking? Bad intel should be blamed on those doing the intel work- not the person who has to rely on the reports. Bush has taken responsibility on that issue though - he has pushed for the upgrading of and better use of intel resources.

CsG

 

[MadRat]

Bush deserves his own treatment. He should be fired for bad management. Oh wait, he's a lame duck president. He's as good as nonexistent anyhow.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Furthermore, Bush has utterly failed to take responsibility for the fact that Iraq was an unjustfied war. People are dying because of it.

Again, your opinion does not make it fact. Just because you think it was unjustified doesn't mean that Bush hasn't taken responsibility for it.

CsG

You sure about that? Everything I've seen lately is pointing the finger at "bad intelligence". Perhaps our intelligence sources really dropped the ball, I don't know. But I do know that we invaded Iraq based on WMDs that weren't really there, and as commander in chief, Bush has NOT taken responsibility, and the blame has instead been sort of placed on our intelligence services. Maybe it is deserved, but Bush has certainly not taken responsibility for it.

Bush should take responsibility for bad intel? WTF are you smoking? Bad intel should be blamed on those doing the intel work- not the person who has to rely on the reports. Bush has taken responsibility on that issue though - he has pushed for the upgrading of and better use of intel resources.

CsG

I find it hard to believe that there was not a single source of credible intel that said that there where no WMDs.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Furthermore, Bush has utterly failed to take responsibility for the fact that Iraq was an unjustfied war. People are dying because of it.

Again, your opinion does not make it fact. Just because you think it was unjustified doesn't mean that Bush hasn't taken responsibility for it.

CsG

You sure about that? Everything I've seen lately is pointing the finger at "bad intelligence". Perhaps our intelligence sources really dropped the ball, I don't know. But I do know that we invaded Iraq based on WMDs that weren't really there, and as commander in chief, Bush has NOT taken responsibility, and the blame has instead been sort of placed on our intelligence services. Maybe it is deserved, but Bush has certainly not taken responsibility for it.

Bush should take responsibility for bad intel? WTF are you smoking? Bad intel should be blamed on those doing the intel work- not the person who has to rely on the reports. Bush has taken responsibility on that issue though - he has pushed for the upgrading of and better use of intel resources.

CsG

I find it hard to believe that there was not a single source of credible intel that said that there where no WMDs.

There was plenty of it. Bush and Cheney and the other wacked out neocons chose to ignore it.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They shouldn't advertise prescription drugs, period. Its a tremendous waste of money. If doctors are doing their job, the advertising should have no effect on revenue.

How will the doctors know about it without marketing?

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They shouldn't advertise prescription drugs, period. Its a tremendous waste of money. If doctors are doing their job, the advertising should have no effect on revenue.

How will the doctors know about it without marketing?

Medical journals.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: EatSpam
They shouldn't advertise prescription drugs, period. Its a tremendous waste of money. If doctors are doing their job, the advertising should have no effect on revenue.

How will the doctors know about it without marketing?

marketing and general audience advertisements are two different things.

the act of marketing is necessary to any product, even getting something into a medical journal is marketing.