$20,000 bonus to official who agreed on nuke claim

World Net Daily ^ | 8/12/2003 | Paul Sperry

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is nothing in it of substance. Just innuendos and rumors from who. The Janitors, cleaning ladies, septic tank cleaners, friends, enemies, who?

There will have to add much more real information before it rises to the level of a typical gossip column.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yup. I am more inclined to read WND's articles against the war than, say, your average Newsday article on any subject you choose....

[justshutupandtakeit]

If those writings relied on the same obscure and dubious sources as this, then Clintoon might have been right.

[JohnGalt]

Fair enough.

[GigaDittos]

It will be interesting to see the Libs tie this to Bush. Guess he should know every thought and meeting with in the Government. After all, he's the President.....omniscient and omnipotent, right? He should have known the guy personally and all he said, right? Don't yall know everything your coworkers think and say? I believe firmly that it's very possible that Bush never heard about any of this. This guy's bosses wouldn't want Bush to know. Good or bad intelligence, I believe Bush decide on what he thought was best.

[JohnGalt]

I appreciate the point, but I think the Rightwing press that supports the President, generally speaking, but is less sure about those fellows that surround him would argue that there was a major breakdown in the process with which intelligence was vetted.

This story adds to that theme.

[RoughDobermann]

Wow, an awful lot of unnamed sources and folks who wish to remain anonymous. It should be pretty easy to find out if this article is factual or not: wait until next year and review Rider's tax return...

[billbears]

Not at the level as presented by the administration early to mid last year, no I don't. Do I believe there may have been 'programs'? It's a possibility and one I would entertain, but not actual WMDs ready to use, nor I do not believe they existed on the scale as laid out by the President.

[JohnGalt]

He's a public employee so the bonuses would be on the record.

[RoughDobermann]

He's a public employee so the bonuses would be on the record.

Okay, let's see them.

[Cyber Liberty]

OK. Then you agree with the DU crowd that "Bush Lied".

Got it. Thanks. I always suspected this might be the case. Now I know what gravity to assign to your comments.

[snooker]

Didn't know WND was right wing. News to me.

But kooks are where you find them.

[JohnGalt]

So if it can be proved to your satifaction that he received the bonuses, you will accept the rest of the story's premise?

[RoughDobermann]

So if it can be proved to your satifaction that he received the bonuses, you will accept the rest of the story's premise?

No, all it would prove is that the foundation of the story is valid (he received two bonuses). Ascertaining what they were for is another matter entirely. Obviously, they won't be described as "Payoff for helping Bush," so it again comes down to sources that can and would be willing to provide some tangible proof, not from an unnamed former co-worker.

[JohnGalt]

So why did you take time out of your day to post on this thread?

[JohnGalt]

How do you jump to that conclusion in your first line?

Could you lay out your line of thinking?

Thanks.

[billbears]

Then you agree with the DU crowd that "Bush Lied".

Nope, don't think I said that. Matter of fact don't think I've ever said that. But thanks for trying to pull the common liberal tactic and twisting my words to suit your needs. I still believe, maybe naively, in the integrity of the President. But I also think the information was and still is faulty.

[RoughDobermann]

So why did you take time out of your day to post on this thread?

I don't know; slumming, I guess? I was hoping that there was more substantive evidence than hearsay on the thread. Since there is not, I agree, it is a waste of time.

[JohnGalt]

But why reveal yourself as a statist apologist when you can just not post at all?

Unless of course, you have your doubts.

[RoughDobermann]

But why reveal yourself as a statist apologist when you can just not post at all?

What makes you think I'm a "statist apologist?"