PatMeebles said:

DomesticTerror said:

PatMeebles said:

Some of your accusations are just ridiculous. You want to criticize the intelligence, fine. I don't care. I'm not saying that because you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was innocent proves that he was completely guilty. I'm just not convinced that Saddam was anywhere near innocent on any crimes he was accused of, given the evidence from the past 12 years and his noncompliance with the UN leading up to March 2003. Will someone tell me where Bush said that they have the exact coordinates of stockpiles? You know, those things can be MOVED. If Bush said he'd find them in a specific part of the country, then that's stupid even from a pro-war stance.

.

"He has weapons of mass destruction, the world's deadliest weapons, which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies." -G.W.

That's completely different than "you'll find them at x latitude and y longitude"

I'll let Lawrence Wilkinson at the State Department under Powell make this next point.

"I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits, and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the UN on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can’t. I’ve wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP—Ammunition Supply Point—with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they’re there, you have to conclude that it’s a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet’s deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell’s UN speech] was accurate."

While not directly attributed to Bush, before the war began Rumsfeld said "We know exactly where the weapons of mass destruction are hidden."

That sounds an awful lot like "wmds are at x latitude and y longitude"

As for the Bush increasing the percentage of Pell grants. Yes he did increase the amount of Pell grants awarded, but did not fund them. So while 30% more people are recieving Pell Grants the amount awarded is much smaller.

The eductation funding increases are pretty invalid as most of it goes to fund testing and is tied directly to a school's performance on standardized tests. The schools which need the funding the most do not recieve it because of their subpar performance on the tests, while the schools which do not need the funding reap the benefits. Bush might be spending 50% more on education, but the quality of education gap cannot be solved by throwing more money at and drilling students.

Bush is spending more on poverty entitlements because the poverty rate is growing under his administration.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509140004