Clinton didn’t lie, Pinesay. It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Silly literalist. . . .
Clinton’s lies didn’t get anybody killed.
No, but his policies did … Ever heard of 9/11?
Is that an admission that Bush lies?
How’s this:
All liars who lie about having sex with fat women should go to jail. All liars who lie about why a nation should go to war should be re-elected.
Happy now?
No, but his policies did … Ever heard of 9/11?[/quote]
Pearl Harbor was Hoover’s fault.
I believe that all president (all politicians) twist the facts of the moment to their advantage. Some outright lie, meaning that they misrepresent facts. Others simply “spin”, which is really just replacing fact with opinion. In all, all politicians are politicians.
In Bush’s case, it really comes down to what I personally believe and what Bush is doing about it:
- I believe that Saddam was seeking and developing WMD.
- I believe that other countries, like Iran and Syria would love WMD.
- I belive the reason to go to war in Iraq was over four things:
- Prempt the use of WMD by Saddam now or in the future.
- Scare the crap out of neighbooring countries.
- Set up a pro-US government in Iraq with Kuwait-sytle democracy as a model for that hotbed of 12th century destruction.
- Put drive-thrus in all McDonald’s
“Liberating” the Iraq people is a bonus reason, as I don’t think we would have gone to war just over that. That’s just window-dressing. We are doing to war, ultimately, for one reason: FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT.
Anyway, you can look for conspiracies all day and try to catch Bush on technicalities and prision photos and Haliburton and big oil and whatever other cliches you like, but Bush is doing pretty much what he said he’d do for the reasons he said he’d do it for. And I support him in it.
If you go to moveon.org which is a mainstream HATE BUSH Website in support of Kerry, you’ll notice how the liberals blame 9/11 on Bush … saying that “he knew”.
No, I don’t actually blame Clinton for 9/11, but if Democrats want to play that game, I can play it. The Gorellic (sp?) memo drafted as policy under the Clinton administration put walls up between the FBI and CIA, precisely the wall that prevented us from detecting 9/11 from data we later found we had and could have used. If Democrats want to play that game with Bush, I can actually show real evidence that 9/11 was caused by Clinton.
Clinton is a liar.
Bush is a liar.
Their apologists are just different sides of the same coin.
The amazing part is that while Bush supporters have no trouble seeing Clinton’s obvious lies and Clinton’s supporters have no trouble seeing Bush’s obvous lies they’re completely impervious to the lies of their own fearless leader.
Cheney’s a serial liar, too:
(MSNBC, 6/17/04)
CNBC’s Gloria Borger: Well, let’s get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, “pretty well confirmed.”
Dick Cheney: No, I never said that.
Borger: OK.
Cheney: I never said that.
Borger: I think that is…
Cheney: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down, we just don’t know.
‘‘That’s been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.’’
Dick Cheney, Meet The Press, 12/9/01
[quote=“spook”]Clinton is a liar.
Bush is a liar.
Their apologists are just different sides of the same coin.
The amazing part is that while Bush supporters have no trouble seeing Clinton’s obvious lies and Clinton’s supporters have no trouble seeing Bush’s obvous lies they’re completely impervious to the lies of their own fearless leader.[/quote]
Perhaps.
But at least Liberals still hope that political mendaciousness can (and should) be overcome, while the Cons have given in to the dark side and can only base their platforms on family “values” (yeah right! :p) and 'being victorious in the face of (whom and what they’ve deemed is) EVIL.
Wow Alien … That’s one beautiful generalization.
Libs = Good
Cons = Bad
OK … Wow, you might even be able to get a Nobel Prize for that one.
Wow Alien … That’s one beautiful generalization.
Libs = Good
Cons = Bad
OK … Wow, you might even be able to get a Nobel Prize for that one.[/quote]
Main Entry: Con
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): conned; con
[quote=“Alien”]Main Entry: Con
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): conned; con
[quote=“pinesay”][quote=“Alien”]Main Entry: Con
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): conned; con
Alien:
What is going on in North Carolina? Aren’t you having fun? Are you being attacked yet? Does John Ashcroft know where you live? Are you being monitored? Are you being revolutionary? Leading protests? joining groups who “do not have this nation’s best interests at heart?” I would strongly adivse against it. Perhaps, after Bush “steals” the next election, we will start putting people like you away, for your own safety of course, and to ensure that the bright clarity of your ideas and the brilliance of your moral strength does not lead any wouldbe voters astray. hee hee hee Just bought some shares in Diebold today and I intend to vote early and vote often at the next board meeting to ensure that various “viruses” are introduced to the software that the Democrats demanded after losing Florida last time.
[quote]In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program.
. . . Mr. Cheney told a group of Wyoming Republicans the United States had “irrefutable evidence” - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, tubes that the Bush administration said were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges, before some were seized at the behest of the United States. . .
The tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs,” Condoleezza Rice, the president’s national security adviser, asserted on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002.
Before Ms. Rice made those remarks, though, she was aware that the government’s foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all. . .
“She was aware of the differences of opinion,” the senior administration official said of Ms. Rice in an interview authorized by the White House. “She was also aware that at the highest level of the intelligence community, there was great confidence that these tubes were for centrifuges.”
. . .Ms. Rice’s alarming description on CNN was in keeping with the administration’s overall treatment of the tubes. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America’s leading nuclear scientists. . .
“Remember,” Dr. David A. Kay, the chief American arms inspector after the war, said in an interview, “the tubes were the only piece of physical evidence about the Iraqi weapons programs that they had.” . . .
Mr. Cheney landed in the Middle East, he and other senior administration officials had been sent two C.I.A. reports about the tubes. Each cited the tubes as evidence that “Iraq currently may be trying to reconstitute its gas centrifuge program.” Neither report, however, mentioned that leading centrifuge experts at the Energy Department strongly disagreed. . .
“The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts,” Mr. Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002. . . “We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons,” he declared. . .
On “Meet the Press,” Mr. Cheney said he knew “for sure” and “in fact” and “with absolute certainty” that Mr. Hussein was buying equipment to build a nuclear weapon. “He has reconstituted his nuclear program,” Mr. Cheney said flatly. . .
The next day President Bush used virtually identical language when he cited the aluminum tubes in an address to the United Nations General Assembly. . .[/quote]