Bush, A Special Comment About Lying

[sephiroth clock]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...49934&hl=en

[Wolffe]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...49934&hl=en [/b] ROFL nice. On a side note, I love how biased American media can be ^^

[Moonbeam]

Bush lies very casually and readily admits it. A week before the election he said that Rumsfeld was staying. Later it was revealed there were already plans for him to go. When asked about that, he said he thought it might hurt the Republicans if he told the truth. It's really amazing, and not too much has been said about it. I almost wish the Democrats would spend the next two years harrassing him about the war as much as the Republicans did Clinton about his sex life. Not really, not very productive at this point, but he deserves it.

[Universal Mind]

I almost wish the Democrats would spend the next two years harrassing him about the war as much as the Republicans did Clinton about his sex life. [/b] How could they? They voted for it. You should read the quotes of what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore said about Hussein's stockpiles of WMD's and the need to go to war in Iraq to overthrow the Hussein regime. I do agree that the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal was an outrage. Clinton did commit perjury, and perjury is illegal and should be, even about private sexual matters. So Clinton was not so innocent. However, the outrageous injustice aspect of the whole thing was that there was not a single federal case in American judicial history where a person was ever convicted of perjury regarding a private sexual matter. In other words, what Clinton did was illegal, but there was no judicial precedent for convicting him on it. That sort of thing had a history of sliding due to the understandablity of it. But Ken Starr went nuts with the issue, investigated the Hell out of everything about it, spent millions of tax dollars pursuing it, and wrote a huge report about the fine details of what Clinton did to Lewinsky's nipples and so forth. It was terrible. Vincent Bugliosi, the lawyer who prosecuted Charles Manson and got him convicted, put up a $10,000 reward for anybody who could find one federal case in which anybody had ever been convicted of perjury regarding a private sexual matter. Nobody was ever able to claim the reward. What happened to Clinton on that was a case of selective prosecution gone insane, and selective prosecution is always an injustice.

[Moonbeam]

How could they? They voted for it. You should read the quotes of what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore said about Hussein's stockpiles of WMD's and the need to go to war in Iraq to overthrow the Hussein regime. [/b] That's true; the're no better but I do have a special dislike of Bush and his buddies. If they concentrate on stupid stuff like that (blame) they don't have time to get other things done which is probably good. I know Bill Clinton sent troops all over the place too; Hillary etc. wanted the war, they all help their buddies get rich (oil, defense, or Wal-Mart) at the expense of the people, all have done illegal or unethical things. Bush is an idiotic brainless puppet, Hillary is the biggest example of slimy pandering and lying there is. Really no difference, they just pretend to be. Just a little extra special feeling I have for Bush though, I guess it's just how obviously stupid he is, plus his pure-evil vice-president. It is just hilarious who ends up runnning for president (Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. Kerry, whoever vs. Hillary) these are the best people they can come up with? What is wrong with this picture? What a joke. Now you got me going; what are we talking about anyway? Oh yea Bush is a liar and so are all the rest of them. At least we have Bushisms, I guess he's good for a laugh.

[Oneironaut Zero]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...49934&hl=en [/b] Good shit. GOOD Shit.

[Wolffe]

Good shit. GOOD Shit. [/b] Oneironaut, you rock my world xD

[Oneironaut Zero]

Oneironaut, you rock my world xD [/b] It's a gift. What can I say?

[Neruo]

Yeah I watch alot of that guy. Really impressive. Only the colbergh report and... the daily show or something. They rip on bush, while making me laugh =) Anyhow, down with bush.

[Universal Mind]

As I have said before, I disagree with Bush on a lot of things. In fact, I think he is a total schmuck when it comes to the War on Drugs, gay marriage, church and state, and other issues. He addressed the idea of drug legalization one time by saying something like, "We're not ready to tell people that it's okay to do drugs." That was so misleading it was jaw dropping. Legalizing drugs is not telling people it's "okay to do" them. It's refraining from putting people in jail for having them. You can stop fighting drugs on the supply side and still fight them even harder on the demand side. I can't stand it when Bush and other politicians are so dishonest about such important matters. The Oberman point is ridiculous, however. It is Oberman who is being misleading and dishonest. Although the Democrats in Congress in so many cases voted for the authorization of the war, they now are opposed to it and say it never should have happened in the first place. They act as though they were never for it, which is extremely dishonest. So Bush was saying that being against preemptive action against terrorist governments is the equivalent of wanting to wait until they attack us. He is right. Oberman is a liar. Did you see how frustrated Keith Oberman was in that video? That is how he acts on a regular basis. He is pissing fire over the fact that Bill O'reilly is slamming his ass in the ratings. They are on the air at the same time, on big time rival news networks. O'reilly runs circles around him. Oberman hates that so much, and it is funny to watch how frustrated he is over it.

[Nanten]

How could they? They voted for it. You should read the quotes of what Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore said about Hussein's stockpiles of WMD's and the need to go to war in Iraq to overthrow the Hussein regime. [/b] Keep in mind that more than one-half of Democrats voted against the war. Also, let's look at Republican hypocrisy. Remember our little intervention in Bosnia? These are some Republican quotes from the time: "You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 "[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy." --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)[/b] Did that intervention become the nightmare that Iraq became? No. Good luck getting any of those people to admit that they said those things, though.

[Universal Mind]

Keep in mind that more than one-half of Democrats voted against the war. Also, let's look at Republican hypocrisy. Remember our little intervention in Bosnia? These are some Republican quotes from the time: Did that intervention become the nightmare that Iraq became? No. Good luck getting any of those people to admit that they said those things, though. [/b] Itsn't it interesting that the Democrats supported that war? Republicans are not against all wars. Those quotes are evidence against that stereotype that Republicans are war hungry and indifferent to American foreign violence. The war in Iraq has tons more justification than the war in Bosnia. Where were all of the protestors during that far less justified war? Clinton was almost incapable of pissing off Democrats. But Bush tries to create a future of democracy in the Middle East to prevent a future of terrorists with WMD's after six governments and the U.N. report WMD's in Iraq, and the quiet people suddenly start spitting burning venom.

[Moonbeam]

But Bush tries to create a future of democracy in the Middle East [/b] They don't want democracy. How is this different than the Soviets "sharing" their philosophy?

[Universal Mind]

They don't want democracy. How is this different than the Soviets "sharing" their philosophy? [/b] We are giving the people of Iraq a future of being able to make their own decisions. The Soviets had and supported a system of government where that cannot happen. If you were locked up in a cage and I let you out, would I be imposing freedom on you? It is not something you could equate with locking you in a cage. In both cases, I am spreading my philosophy, but one involves freedom and the other involves the opposite.

[Wolffe]

We are giving the people of Iraq a future of being able to make their own decisions. The Soviets had and supported a system of government where that cannot happen. If you were locked up in a cage and I let you out, would I be imposing freedom on you? It is not something you could equate with locking you in a cage. In both cases, I am spreading my philosophy, but one involves freedom and the other involves the opposite. [/b] It's not very free to be planting the U.S's choice in easily-manipulated officials is it? You could say that in real life, you're doing everyone a favour by not slaughtering them like cattle in their sleep. It's a pathetic conclusion toward a losing ethical argument.

[Moonbeam]

We are giving the people of Iraq a future of being able to make their own decisions. The Soviets had and supported a system of government where that cannot happen. If you were locked up in a cage and I let you out, would I be imposing freedom on you? It is not something you could equate with locking you in a cage. In both cases, I am spreading my philosophy, but one involves freedom and the other involves the opposite. [/b] This analogy does not fit. I am not a history scholar, but it is obvious that American democracy evolved over a very long time and fit the circumstances and then was fought for by the people who believed in it. This is not the case in Iraq. Their culture is not the same and therefore the same processes that we use may not be accepted or even understood. To use your analogy, you can't take a caged animal that has been in there a long time and just open the door and say, there, you're free, be happy. It may not know how to do that, or you may just let something bad in the cage. I don't want to go too far with that, because I don't think the Iraqis were caged animals, or that they were safe, but if they wanted freedom, maybe they should have taken it for themselves. There's a lot of other people who aren't free in the world, are we going to help them next? Or just the ones who happen to live on top of something a few of us can get really rich with? Is that worth American teenagers and who knows how many Iraqis dying for? You know what is going on in Iraq right now. Does it seem like it is working? That it can possibly work? As low of an opinon as I have of Bush et al, I really still give them credit for lying to us and doing all this for either personal gain or, less likely, cheaper gas for all of us. I expected them to say, OK, Iraq's ours now and so is all the oil, the world is now safe for SUV's. Not that I agree with that, but at least it is comprehensible. If they actually went into Iraq thinking that it would make us safer...well they are way incredibly pitifully stupider than I thought possible.