Michele Bachmann - incompetent, or dishonest?, page 1

Michele Bachmann - incompetent, or dishonest?, page

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 23-11-2011 @ 08:35 AM by negativenihil

Oh my...

gawker.com...

Did you hear Michele Bachmann at Tuesday's Republican debate saying that terrorists have made six different attempts on Pakistan's 15 nuclear sites? That's not information that's ever been made public! Which raises the question: did Bachmann just leak classified information to a national audience?

The article goes on:

Except that the other thing about Michele Bachmann is that she's crazy, and wrong about almost everything, including her own life story. So it's also possible—equally possible?—that she just wholesale invented the line about "six terrorist attempts," much in the same way that she invented the line about "59,000 illegal immigrant terrorists" that she was peddling a few weeks ago.

So which is it ATS? Is Bachmann dishonest, or simply incompetent? Should she be allowed to remain on House Intelligence Committee after demonstrating such a flagrant disregard for protocol? Or are we all ok with the idea of a candidate casually tossing around sensitive information in a public televised debate? (If this is even true at all!)

edit on 23-11-2011 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 08:40 AM by yourboycal2

She's both .

Were stuck with her till her american voters wake up , and vote for the next douche

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 08:40 AM by Benevolent Heretic

Do we have to pick either/or Because I think she's both.And I'd like to add extreme and dangerous to the list.

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 08:43 AM by DrumsRfun

Incompetent or dishonest?
She is probably bought and paid for so I say both.

For me Ron Paul has been hitting them out of the park.

edit on 23-11-2011 by DrumsRfun because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 08:48 AM by kellynap43

reply to post by negativenihil

So it’s ok when the New York Times spews secret information about the Iraq war and other covert operations, but when Michelle does it, it’s wrong?

I have one word for that, hypocrite!

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 08:58 AM by ludshed

Shes the troll who rallied everyone into signing the extension of the patriot act. Need I say more?

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:09 AM by JIMC5499

How about neither? Just because information isn't common knowledge, doesn't mean it is classified.

I wonder if you saw the thread about Political Trolling? This thread fits the definition.

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:10 AM by justinsweatt

I'm going to say that she's both incompetent and dishonest. I'm not a fan.

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:16 AM by jerryznv

reply to post by JIMC5499

I wonder if you saw the thread about Political Trolling? This thread fits the definition.

Come on...really...it's a simple question about a candidate...nothing more.

A person could simply be trying to find out if anyone thinks she is incompetent or dishonest...I don't think you have to pick one or the other...you could simply say no shes not...she is next to Jesus in honesty and more competent than God in running out country (of course it would be a lie...but you get the point).

This is not even close to causing anyone to get worked up over...I am surprised you felt compelled to throw that last line in there...whatever I guess.

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:24 AM by Riffrafter

Originally posted by jerryznv
reply to post by JIMC5499

I wonder if you saw the thread about Political Trolling? This thread fits the definition.

Come on...really...it's a simple question about a candidate...nothing more.

A person could simply be trying to find out if anyone thinks she is incompetent or dishonest...I don't think you have to pick one or the other...you could simply say no shes not...she is next to Jesus in honesty and more competent than God in running out country (of course it would be a lie...but you get the point).

This is not even close to causing anyone to get worked up over...I am surprised you felt compelled to throw that last line in there...whatever I guess.

Well... it's a question that falls squarely in the "When did you stop beating your wife?" category.

The comma didn't help...although it may have been a typo.

BTW - I am NOT a fan of Michele Bachmann

edit on 11/23/2011 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:31 AM by Aggie Man

Personally, I think she is both incompetent and dishonest; among other negative attributes. Anyhow, I was just reading the following article and found it to be relevant to this discussion:

The statements: "Six attempts have already been made on nuclear sites. This is more than an existential threat. We have to take this very seriously," Bachmann said. She also said, "We have to recognize what's happening on the ground. These are nuclear weapons all across this nation and potentially al Qaeda could get a hold of these weapons. These weapons could find their way out of Pakistan into New York City or into Washington, D.C., and a nuclear weapon could be set off in this city. That's how serious this is."

The facts: According to Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, six incidents at sites considered known or likely nuclear installations in Pakistan have occurred. But they do not appear to represent threats to the country's nuclear arsenal: a suicide bomber drove a motorcycle into the side of a bus and killed eight air force personnel; seven people were wounded in a school bus bomb explosion; a munitions factory blast killed scores of civilians; a suicide attack killed a civilian, a vehicle-borne IED killed 33; and militants assaulted a naval aviation station.

The verdict: Misleading. Yes, six attacks occurred, but they do not appear to have been attempts to seize the country's nuclear weapons. In addition, Bachmann offered no evidence to back up her assertion that the weapons could be spirited to New York City or Washington.

www.cnn.com...

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:39 AM by fnpmitchreturns

reply to post by negativenihil

We know it is both. First, I believe she is dishonest because she soft pedals he real beliefs of what should be the law of the land. She would create a Christian religious theoracy and end religous freedom in the constutition.

Secondly, I believe her about the Pakistani nuke problem. Most people don't even realize that Pak could have about 300 nukes by now and they have built the largest plountium producing plant in the world. Pakistan is the next Iraq! This country's elected government are the ones that set up the Taliban in Afghanistan. So, no I don't trust Pak and I see no reason why they need so many nukes.

edit on 23-11-2011 by fnpmitchreturns because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 09:53 AM by SaneThinking

As part of your house intelligence committee i must say she makes your government look real stupid, and at that very unintelligent, her comments on Iran alone out of context and mis-read at last nights debate were comical at best, then going on to state that the president on Iran has said if he had a nuclear weapon he would use it against isreal. Find it michele cause it's a dead horse debate here at ATS. The women is a fraud bought and paid for like everyone else.

Just so strange she gets so much face time, polls so low, but the media keeps idiots like her and Cain propped up on a pedestal. Two of equally the most uninformed people I have ever witnessed speaking freely.

All I can say is you better hope it's a Ron Paul/ Huntsman card otherwise I fear "we", meaning all north americans even us Canadians are straight hooped......

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 10:46 AM by jerryznv

reply to post by Riffrafter

Well... it's a question that falls squarely in the "When did you stop beating your wife?" category.

If I were asked that question...or any that fall into that category...a simple "I never started..." would be my answer.

As for the comma...well I am not the grammar police...but I would say it is a typo...but that would be one for the OP...either way...doesn't matter...it still is not a reason to scrap a thread.

On that note...did you read the thread the OP was referred to? You have the option of alerting the ATS police if you think a thread is in violation of the T & C 's....but you know that because you have been here for a minute.

P.S. I don't like Michele Bachmann either...so the last thing I would do is find a reason to bash an ATS member for asking about her character...but thats just me.

Peace

Jerry

edit on 23-11-2011 by jerryznv because: ...

reply posted on 23-11-2011 @ 06:18 PM by e11888

Id say both tbh. She seems incompetent when we hear hear in these debates, yet her actions make her seem dishonest. For instance, she voted for the Patriot Act after using the Tea Party and Ron Paul base to put herself onto the national stage. Its possible dishonest is the wrong term here. I prefer sellout.

Pages: ^^TOP^^