I think the question is about Mr. Bush. Appoligists for Bush always try to change the subject and say well look at Clinton. Blah blah blah. Bush is the culpret now, the bigger liar, vewry possibly the worst president ever, the deceiver, the double talker, the republican, is he the puppet of Sharon? No amount of blather will change the facts about his wrong doing. If his only crime was adultry, I could forgive him, but the damage his is doing is far greater than a little sexual dallience. Get Bush out in '04! Send him to jail!
Respectfully speaking,
It wasn't I who first flipped the coin to Clinton. In fact I really haven't been an appoligist for Bush if you really read back. I just simply pointed out that Clinton did in fact commit a crime. I was simply pointing out, (and a good job I think I did at that) the inconsistency in your logic regarding the issue of lying.
At best you mis-spoke and made it appear as if you believed that the outcome of a lie determines it's severity. At worst, you intentionally said so.
My personal opinion regarding Bush, is that we cannot equate him to say someone like a police officer. Police officers are bound by law in many aspects, even when that binding prohibits them from catching a criminal. We do this to protect civil liberties. The civil liberties are an essential part of our society. On a global scale though, we cannot bind our leaders on such premises. There is no such thing as a civil liberty for a nation (at least not in the same respects as there are for individuals). On the global scale we have to make leeway for the fact that everything revolves around a nation (a group of people), not an individual. Illegal search and seizure works well for the individual, but what about a full blown nation where a few may be controlling the herd? Do we justifiably allow the oligarchic few to inflict their will on the rest of the nation over the mentality of civil liberties?
Anywayz, to get to the point here.
1 - We have no actual evidence that Bush lied about WMD's. The lack of evidence is NOT evidence of a crime.
2 - Our nation as well as plenty of others was/is fully aware of the other issues concerning Iraq. (such as torture, mass graves, etc)
3 - As far as our soldiers? I just recently finished my time in the National Guard. I spent 6 months in Bosnia as well. I made both of those decisions. The soldiers over in Iraq who are dying daily,have chosen to be in the military. In fact, how many cases can you cite where soldiers where lining up to go home in opposition to the war? Virtualy none if any. It seems a bit odd that soldiers who are actually over there doing the job, who are actually the ones dying, taking the risk, have little opposition to the cause yet many on the homefront are crying their heads off in dissatisfaction. The ones crying about it aren't even over there. They pretend to have so much sympathy for our troops, yet fail to realize that our troops want support not sympathy and a very large amount of troops do believe in the cause. To me, it's a slap in the face.
So you are free to slander Bush all you want, hope he isn't re-elected, twist the facts, or whatever else. Just remember, you are only fooling yourself.
@jÜц_Ø®Ñj
It good you feel free to voice your opinions, Mr. Defoliant (agent orange)! You, like many other Americans hope that the USA is guided by leaders who have the citizen's best interests at heart. I too have had that hope. In fact most public servants serve with competence and integrity. I am amazed however, that many people can fail to see through the deceptions, equivocations and outright falsehoods of the present Washington administration.
As for your military service; I applaud it. I too was in the National Guard. I served six years and entered as a draft elgible college student and retired a 2nd Lt. after completing a state OCS program and serving two years in a junior leadership position. Some of the finest people I have ever met, I met in the military. I learned in the army to first; accomplish the mission and second; protect the troups. I learned the value of good leadership. It makes all the difference. I also learned that the cruelest betrail is to give unjust orders and force those who are pledged to follow without asking, to do something against thier better judgement or conscience as individuals. The national republican leadership have tried shamlessly to cast those who have seen through the ruse of this war as un-American -soft on terror - supporters of tyrants and so forth. That is a specious tac, because it sidesteps the central issue of the injustice of the premise upon which the war was promoted to us and points the finger at the proverbial boy who sees the naked emperor - in this case Bush! Wether or not, you are aware of it, you too are parroting the party line, "agent."
As for the statement that no actual evidence exists that Bush lied, well, it's there for those who genuinely seek the truth if you want to find it. For me it started long before the war just listening to Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld's speeches and personal interviews. It comes as an abstract disgust that something is at first subtly then grossly wrong "with this picture." All the whistle blowers who stood up were quickly quieted - shusshed or if they persisted they were defamed or deprived of their lively-hoods. With time teh duplicity has been sorted out by patiently putting the pieces together - now the puzzle is assembled, the war was based lies. i am, sorry many of you may have missed that moment of realizastion of "waite a minute that is WRONG! catestrophically wrong for those who have lost their lives as a result.
One of the most difficult tasks which confront members of a democratic society is to discern truth from distortion and falsehood. Most teachers are pretty good at it. If you can't trust Rush Limpberger (sp) anymore (joke) ask a woman or a man who has been teaching for thirty years or so in the public schools. Pick some one who can calmly look you in the eye and tell you you're full of s**t and you can accept it because of you somehow instinctively trust their raw veracity and their professionalism.
Being accused of slander in speaking the truth about Mr. Bush gives me hope in that once you too learn the truth you will agree that at the very least Mr. Bush should be seperated from public office. And that bodes well for November, when most americans too, will be able to separate fact from fantasy.
For the record here is some evidence from Mr. Clark's 60 minutes testimony:
Clarke's horror was compounded by the fact that he and others had been clarioning warnings about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda within the Bush White House for months and months. "On January 24th, 2001," said Clarke, "I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo wasn't acted on. I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they came back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."
"George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead," continued Clarke. "He said that in June, July, August." For the record, Bush's response to these warnings was to go to Texas for a month-long vacation. No actions of any significance were taken to address the al Qaeda threat until after the towers came down.
In pressing for action against the looming al Qaeda threat, Clarke finally got a meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."
From the Wm. Rivers Pitt story on TruthOut:
Sidney Blumenthal, the former Clinton advisor who worked with Clarke, told me via email, "Dick Clarke is a consummate professional, who served Republican and Democratic administrations, and his integrity is impeccable. His account of what happened is rock solid, as he is. The attacks on him have only affirmed the facts as Clarke presents them. Not one fact he presents has been overturned in the desperate effort to discredit him. The attack on Clarke, filled with new deceptions, diversions and lies, reveals ever more clearly the character of the Bush administration--and the fear Bush has that the American people will learn the truth about his record."
Richard Clarke stands now in a line of accusers that includes senior Bush Administration terrorism advisor Rand Beers, who resigned his position in disgust after watching the administration's actions. The line includes career Air Force officer Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the Pentagon and witnessed Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans manipulate data about Iraq to justify an invasion. The line includes Greg Thielmann, a top State Department intelligence officer who likewise resigned in disgust and accused the White House of cooking the data about Iraq.
The line includes former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who witnessed the Bush administration gear up for an Iraq war literally moments after entering the White House in January 2001. The line includes Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who debunked the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program by investigating the matter in Niger. His reward for telling the truth was the annihilation of his wife's career as a deep-cover CIA operative by vindictive White House officials. The line is getting longer by the day. The White House would have you believe these career diplomats and military officers are all lying Bush-haters.
I am tired of being Bush Whacked, This administration has wrecked are economy and caused are country to loose its credibility with several allies as well as supporting outsourcing of American Jobs. Then pats themselves on the back for a job well done on 9/11 to come to find out they were told months in advance of the threat of possible terrorist attacks. I wont believe the American people will be as supportive as some news reporters want you to think. John Kerry will win by a landslide
Fine. Here are my questions I want answered, I am all ears:
1. What proof do we have that Bush made an inentional mistake going to war?
2. What better plan should Bush have followed in the job loss issue? (Mind you that despite the enormous amount of job losses in the US, the jobless claims remained the same with little fluctuation, these people either layed back and died, or found something that paid)
3 . What evidence is there to show that 9.11 could have really been prevented and/or thwarted?
4 . Why did it take Richard Clarke 2 1/2 years to release information that may have changed the outcome of 9.11?
5. Why should I beforced to pay $18.90 (Amazon.com) to learn the "truth" about the Bush administration?
6. Which countries have we lost credibility to and exactly how are we defining this loss?
I think that should be sufficient. I could give you many more,but this will do for now. I am all ears and awaiting answers. Now I won't patronize anyone here by acting like George Bush is right up there next to Mother Teresa, but I do believe what you see is for the most part what you get (remember this is politics and there is a thing called National Security).
@jÜц_Ø®Ñj
Typical lazy republican response agent! Do your ans I emphasize YOUR homework. Whethere or not it is your intention to do so, you are using the old "prove it" debate technique. Do your own research, my man! The facts are all in the public record.
If the facts lie in the "public record" why don't you save him the time and tell him the answers... or are you too "lazy"? Perhaps, you just don't know the answers or are afraid of what the answers may be... Obviously, because you know the answers you could just tell him, right? Is that too much to ask? Could it be the answers will only prove his point. To quote him "5. Why should I be forced to pay $18.90 (Amazon.com) to learn the "truth" about the Bush administration?" The answer to that question is all over this so called "public record", right? What do you mean anyway,when you say this "public record" term. Do you mean the various forms of media? Maybe the answer to my question of what is the "public record" is in your so called "public record." Well, anyway, the point of my post was to point out that you really don't know the answers to his questions and that your definition of "lazy" is a little inconsistent. It's "lazy" for him not to know the answers to his questions and to ask you, but it's not "lazy" for you to claim you know the answers and then not tell them to him. Maybe, just maybe, more people would agree with the latter of the two statements.
Jonathan I. King
The fact that GW Bush is a liar isn't altered by what I or any one else knows. It amazes me that Bush supporters don't ever say simply that they are sorry for misleading congress and the American people about going to war with Iraq (and a number of other lies) instead, just like Jonathan above, they attack those who have paid attention enough to hear the lies and call Mr. Bush on them. This behavour is simple blind allegence or loyality to a person who, it is becomming abundantly clear, doen't deserve either.
The "public record" is commonly available information. The WWW is a good source. But not all "sources" are as veritable as others, just go to "whitehouse.com" to see what I mean! This sadly is where judgement comes in - and this is the responsibility of every individual in America and in the world - to separate the wheat from the chaff. Find your truth. I suggest starting with the White House and the published records of Mr. Bush's speeches. Here you can track the web of lies as they built up to the invasion -aggression- of Iraq by the USA. These arn't little lies but real whoppers - and they have caused the deaths of thousands of people around the world.
As to American credibility - when the leaders are known liars - that means a marginally astute people should no longer trust them "blindly." You might look up the definition of the word 'credulity' in the dictionary. Bush is a man of faith not of integrity or trustworthyness. I vote that integrity trumps religious zeal every day. That's why I choose to live in a liberal democracy - or what's left of it - and not in a religious state like Israel, the Taliban in Afganistan or Iran.