Bush, a liar?

[archeiron]

Why do we have to keep goign over the same shit. Remember the UN inspectors who cataloged all the shit Iraq had? Remember he had to comply and show evidence of their destruction? Therefore they(the US) knew Iraq had them. It's was common knowledge. How you can pull a lie out of this stuff is amazing.

Your comment is invalid and does not logically follow.

FACT: The White House said on many occassions prior to the war that the US "knew" they had WMD at that time. The White House said they had TONS of biological and chemical agents as well as 20,000 warheads capable of deploying them, plus manned and unmanned aircraft able to deploy them.

FACT: The UN Inspectors found little or no evidence of WMDs.

FACT: Iraq did not prove that the WMDs were destroyed.

FACT: We haven't found the WMDs that the White House claimed were there prior to the war.

CONCLUSION: The White House was not accurate about what was said prior to the war regarding the confirmed presence of WMDs.


The fact that they couldn't prove that the WMDs were not destroyed is not evidence, on its own, that the WMDs still existed.

You could hand me a peice of paper. I could burn it and dispose of the ashes. You could ask me for proof that the paper was destroyed. I wouldn't be able to prove it. That is does not PROVE that I still have the paper.

But dont you think if your life hung on the fact that you proved you destroyed the paper you would make damn sure you proved you destroyed it?

Absolutely. I agree with you that Iraq should have provided proof. However, this is another topic. I was addressing the inconsistency of the White House pre-war comments with the post-war facts. The two do not add up.

I am not saying that Iraq was one of the "good guys" before. I am pointing out that the White House did, indeed, offer false information as pre-war justifications that has not been substantiated since.

As neither you nor Midnyte have disputed this and based upon the fact that the quotes from the White House website substantiate my claim, I assume we can consider this discussion closed.



The White House did mispresent the facts (and/or lie, if you will) prior to the war.

THE END.

(EDIT: corrected punctuation error)

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Whatever Arch. I still can clear FM rares faster than you so neener neener.

[Jice Virago]

If you don't like either of them, then why defend them and deny the obvious at the same time?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If you don't like either of them, then why defend them and deny the obvious at the same time?

Because I don't have a blind hatred for them, therefore causing me to read into their statements and find make-believe lies. You obviously do. That's cool for you. Good luck with that.

[Lynks]

I can't actually believe your "im better than all of you" attitude. It's truly amazing that you think that. Way to go little buddy.

[Voronwë]

what is ambiguos about:

"Saddam wants to use Al Qaeda as a forward army"

"We have defeated an ally of Al Qaeda"

?

[archeiron]

If you don't like either of them, then why defend them and deny the obvious at the same time?

Because I don't have a blind hatred for them, therefore causing me to read into their statements and find make-believe lies. You obviously do. That's cool for you. Good luck with that.

Go read the quotes I posted on the previous page and point out which are ambiguous in their assertion of the existence of WMDs in Iraq. You are being obtuse; you refuse to actually discuss the topic logically in a reasonable manner. I am totally non-partisan as a result of being out of the country for so long. I hate the Democrats just as much as I hate the Republicans.

As a friend, I am asking to make our conversations in this forum on topic and meaningful. I am asking you to stop personally insulting me and discuss topcis in a mature manner. (REF:Direct Insults)If you can't do that, then welcome to my ignore list.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

If you don't like either of them, then why defend them and deny the obvious at the same time?

Because I don't have a blind hatred for them, therefore causing me to read into their statements and find make-believe lies. You obviously do. That's cool for you. Good luck with that.

Go read the quotes I posted on the previous page and point out which are ambiguous in their assertion of the existence of WMDs in Iraq. You are being obtuse; you refuse to actually discuss the topic logically in a reasonable manner. I am totally non-partisan as a result of being out of the country for so long. I hate the Democrats just as much as I hate the Republicans.

As a friend, I am asking to make our conversations in this forum on topic and meaningful. I am asking you to stop personally insulting me and discuss topcis in a mature manner. (REF:Direct Insults)If you can't do that, then welcome to my ignore list.

Arch, add me to the ignore list if you wish. I am not trying to be uncivilized. You continue to ask me questions even after I have answered them.

I do not see any lies in those quotes. I have read them numerous times. I see no lies. The only lies I see are coming from those lying when they call Bush a liar. Maybe if I wasn't a racist, bigot, sexist, Bush cock sucking, close minded, NRA loving, and whatever else I have been falsely labeled with on these boards, then maybe I could ascend to your level of conciousness and see the world as it really is.

[Karae]

The Palastinians were misplaced by the UN not the US. You could say that we were involved only though the merit of us supporting the UN. I have never seen US troops packing up Palastinians and shipping them out. I also find that the the current administration and the former administration have recognized the need for a Palastinian state in the region.The only reason why we are blamed in that region is because we are allied with Isreal. And the reasons are very clear for that. Our support of Isreal is a Catch 22, much like our support for the Saudi's.

Bzzt, wrong, try again!

Jews were first allowed to emigrate to Palestine after Harry Truman put pressure on Clement Attlee (Prime Minister of Great Britain, who controlled Palestine at the time). While Attlee would not consent to Truman's proposal to allow 100,000 or more Jews emigrate to Palestine, he did agree to form the joint Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry. The United States Senate, however, refused to wait for the results, passing the Taft-Wagner resolution which called for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

All of this took place before the end of the war and before the creation of the U.N.

By the time the U.N. became involved, with the creation of the Special Committe on Palestine in 1947, over 500,000 Jews had emigrated to Palestine. The committee ruled that Great Britain withdraw from Palestine. The Committee also rules that Palestine be portioned - giving 17% of the nation over to the Jews to form Israel (which would be inhabited by nearly all of the over 500,000 Jews and approximately 300,000 Palestinians currently living in the area) and the remaining land to remain Palestinian and house the remaining 800,000+ Palestinians and approx. 20,000 Jews currently living there.

When Great Britain withdrew, May 14, 1948, Israel immediately declared independence from Palestine. The British mandate for Palestine expired 6 P.M. EST, at 6:11 P.M. the United States recognized Israel as a Nation, the first to do so.

On May 15, 1948 a Civil War ensued between Israel and Palestine. It isn't clear who attacked first, what is clear is that the Israeli army outnumbered the join Palestinian/Arab army nearly three to one. In addition to a significant advantage of numbers, the Israeli's also enjoyed an advantage of arms afforded by the coupling of Congress's mandate that no United States companies participate in the Arab League's boycott of trade with Israel with their December 5, 1947 Arab trade embargo. Although Great Britain did continue to trade with Arab nations, at this point in time much of the nation's manufacturing capability, which even at its peak was nowhere near that of the United States, still laid in ruin as a result of German bombing during World War II. At the end of this very lopsided fight, over 700,000 Palestinians were displaced. The 300,000 who had been living in the territory mandated by the U.N. for a Jewish state and over 400,000 more from the territory Israel took control of as a result of the war.

The United States pushed for the emigration of Jews to Palestine - allowing over 500,000 of them to emigrate before the United Nations was ever involved. When push came to shove, the United States ignored the Palestinians in favor of the Israelis, providing Israel both financial support and arms as they displaced over 700,000 Palestinians.

Sadly, I don't see any option for placating the Palestinians and greater Arab world other than removing Israel and all Jews from former Palestinian land...but that creates a whole other problem. Perhaps in time the two can learn to coexist but, for now, the memory of Palestinian expulsion.

And, yea, I'm not surprised to see you suggesting YET ANOTHER pointless war that will serve only to give us thousands more enemies just like the current one has. Get a fucking clue, war doesn't solve anything. War doesn't stop that sort of thing, it increases it. Invading Iraq didn't make the world safer, it made it more dangerous. "Terrorist" attacks are now an everyday occurance where before they were extremely rare. I guess people like you won't be happy until everyone hates us and we're in a perpetual state of war.

[Markulas]

hmmm its kinda weird how bush/cheney say that the Media implied that Iraq had a connection with 9/11 and they didnt lie, but at the same time thousands of republicans/clowns/british say how Left the Media is. Now why would a left sided source such as the Media want to imply or help Bush's support for the Iraq war.....

mystery.

[Avestan]

Big difference. Clinton lied under oath. It is a fact.

And I still think that what he was lying about had no business being asked of him in the first place, so I don't really give a shit that he lied about it.

You only speculate Bush lied. You have no proof. No one has any proof. Because it is only defamatory speculation to destroy a man's chance at re-election.

Does everyone really believe that we have no business insisting that our president is a moral person? It seems to me that the president does not have the right to privacy. He has to be an example for all. This does not mean a professional example, but an example in all walks of life.

It always seemed ridiculous to me that people would suggest that it did not matter that he porked an intern in the oval freaking office. . .and lied to the nation and to the courts about it.

I voted for Bill Clinton when I was 18, but I wanted him impeached more than anyone when all of this hit the fan.

I think we have the right to ask our president to be a role model. You do not have to agree with their politics, but I would expect them not to debase the office we hold so highly. . .and the entire country along with it by doing something so completely morally reprehensible as screwing an intern who is only a couple of years older than your daughter while you are the leader of the United States of America.

[Mplor]

If Bush honestly believed what he was saying, that doesn't make him a liar. It makes him stupid.

Personally, I believe Bush surrounded himself with too many like-minded and insular advisors (he values loyalty above critical thinking). The intellectual inbreeding that resulted left them all convinced that their claims were true, or true enough that they could spin over the difference.

This sort of mistake is far worse than knowing the truth and lying about it because it's not a one-off blunder. It's symptomatic of critical and persistent flaws in the administration's decision-making process. In other words, errors of this magnitude will continue to be made until Bush either does some serious housecleaning (Tenet was a scapegoat) or is voted out of office.

[Zaelath]

Big difference. Clinton lied under oath. It is a fact.

And I still think that what he was lying about had no business being asked of him in the first place, so I don't really give a shit that he lied about it.

You only speculate Bush lied. You have no proof. No one has any proof. Because it is only defamatory speculation to destroy a man's chance at re-election.

Does everyone really believe that we have no business insisting that our president is a moral person? It seems to me that the president does not have the right to privacy. He has to be an example for all. This does not mean a professional example, but an example in all walks of life.

It always seemed ridiculous to me that people would suggest that it did not matter that he porked an intern in the oval freaking office. . .and lied to the nation and to the courts about it.

I voted for Bill Clinton when I was 18, but I wanted him impeached more than anyone when all of this hit the fan.

I think we have the right to ask our president to be a role model. You do not have to agree with their politics, but I would expect them not to debase the office we hold so highly. . .and the entire country along with it by doing something so completely morally reprehensible as screwing an intern who is only a couple of years older than your daughter while you are the leader of the United States of America.

The only significant thing he did wrong was lying under oath, the rest of it is a matter for his wife and family. It has fuck all to do with you, and you have no right what-so-ever to question him about it.

The only person I know of that would want their life under that kind of scrutiny was nailed to a cross for his trouble.

[Mak]

The only significant thing he did wrong was lying under oath, the rest of it is a matter for his wife and family. It has fuck all to do with you, and you have no right what-so-ever to question him about it.

I could not disagree more with that statement.

I absolutely have a right to hold my President to, at the very least- the same standards- that everyone else is held to. We can open that up to a lot more debate if you'd like, but there are a number of things, both actual and theoretical, that invalidate your statement.

[Kelshara]

Pretty much every single president has had affairs, hell the one y'all praise up into the clouds (JFK) did for sure. I couldn't care less if a president bangs interns as long as he does a good job for the country.

And btw, it wasn't the fact that he had an affair that made people laugh at the US back then. It was all the hysteria afterwards and the gazillion dollars wasted on it.

[Adex_Xeda]

As neither you nor Midnyte have disputed this and based upon the fact that the quotes from the White House website substantiate my claim, I assume we can consider this discussion closed.

The White House did mispresent the facts (and/or lie, if you will) prior to the war.

THE END.

I do not dispute the quotes you found Arch, I disagree with your conclusion drawn from them.


Question 1: Did the White House misrepresent the facts?
Question 2: Did Bush Lie?

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

A restatement of documented fact. The UN did indeed say this.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Again Bush is restating the results of UN findings.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The intel people gave him this one. The worst you could say here was that their best guess was off target, or yet to be proven. (aka. the sarin gas was shipped out of Iraq) That does not constitute a lie or misrepresentation. He stated this as a estimation, not a fact, thus this is not a misrepresented fact.

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

We have Iraqi commanders that have verified this one. The commanders said that their neighboring units had gas rounds and were ready to use them. It was a classic case of "the other guy had them" It makes sense, If Saddam didn't have WMD he sure the hell isn't going to let his neighboring countries know, nor is it going to loose face by letting his army think he didn't have them. So what do you do if you're Saddam? You issue orders to your army to use their gas rounds if warranted. Every other unit assumes the other guy has it and Saddam loses no face. Meanwhile the CIA types get information from military informants that Saddam did indeed authorize WMD usage.

Did Bush lie here? No.
Was his intel accurately related to the audience? Yes the Iraqi commanders truely belived this.
Was the point of the intel accurate? It doesn't look like it.
Did Bush some how twist this information to his purposes? No he reported what he had.

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari said "there is no question we have evidence and information"
Was that evidence and information accurate at some point yes. Was that evidence and information timely? It doesn't look like it was. It looks like the intel guys weren't doing a good job.
Did Ari Lie? nope. He reported what he had.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Everyone knew he had them at one point. Bush had intel telling him that Saddam still had them. Bush was tremendously distrusting of Saddam after 14 years of cheat and retreat politics. Bush knew that Iraq provided an avenue for terrorism to continue breathing. He made a judgement call to invade. He wanted to shut this crap down.

In retrospect we see that the intel he was getting was too limited. It reported the peripheral goings on of the Iraq army, but didn't penetrate to Saddam's tightly controled truth.

Did Bush misrepresent the truth? No he didn't he acted on the information he had as best he could.

Did Bush Lie? Nothing here suggests that he falsified anything.

Was Bush right on the WMD issue? It doesn't look like it.

Bush gambled. He saw a hell of a threat and did his best to make sure it was eliminated. He wasn't being dishonest.

The quotes provided show that Mr. Bush isn't Ms. Cleo.
The quotes provided do not show that Bush lied.

[Arilain]

Karae I don't think you realize that no matter what we do we will be hated. The reason for the daily attacks in Iraq are two fold. One is Iraqi countrymen defending thier homes. The other is outsiders in terror groups finding easier targets to go after.

My personal view of the terrorists are that they are the Islamic version of the KKK and other far-right religious groups. They hate plain and simple, regardless of fact or what the religion tells them. They go by a very old set of laws that promote thier behavior.

If tomorrow we found a way to kick off the shackles of oil and get the hell out of the middle east the terrorists would still hate us. We would continue to be attacked on our soil and elsewhere. If we gave them each a million dollars (per person) and they had the means to bring up their life, they would still hate us.

To them christians and jews should be killed. Don't make a mistake of thinking that they will spare you because you do not support the Iraq War. They want a world free of infidels.

As for the creation of Israel. You should blame the UK instead of the US. Also those same agencies that you pointed out were merged in with the UN. Basicly after WWII the allies were like "uhh...you can't come here" to the Jews that were leaving Europe. Most wanted to come to the US and the UK but were turned away and ended up supporting a small radical group claiming to retake the "promised land." It's actually a pretty amazing and under reported part of history.

I find it laughable that we are so quick to condenm and protest our leaders yet we do not do the same for Saddam and Bin laden. Where is the outrage toward terrorism? Or did they win and you are too afraid to speak out?

[Zaelath]

The only significant thing he did wrong was lying under oath, the rest of it is a matter for his wife and family. It has fuck all to do with you, and you have no right what-so-ever to question him about it.

I could not disagree more with that statement.

I absolutely have a right to hold my President to, at the very least- the same standards- that everyone else is held to. We can open that up to a lot more debate if you'd like, but there are a number of things, both actual and theoretical, that invalidate your statement.

Bullshit, what other possible circumstance would it be acceptable for a person to be questioned under oath about consentual sex outside of perhaps a divorce proceeding which again has nothing to do with you.

What standard are you talking about anyway? Pergury perhaps, sure, but he never should have had to answer that question.

[archeiron]

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Everyone knew he had them at one point. Bush had intel telling him that Saddam still had them. Bush was tremendously distrusting of Saddam after 14 years of cheat and retreat politics. Bush knew that Iraq provided an avenue for terrorism to continue breathing. He made a judgement call to invade. He wanted to shut this crap down.

In retrospect we see that the intel he was getting was too limited. It reported the peripheral goings on of the Iraq army, but didn't penetrate to Saddam's tightly controled truth.

Did Bush misrepresent the truth? No he didn't he acted on the information he had as best he could.

Did Bush Lie? Nothing here suggests that he falsified anything.

Was Bush right on the WMD issue? It doesn't look like it.

Bush gambled. He saw a hell of a threat and did his best to make sure it was eliminated. He wasn't being dishonest.

The quotes provided show that Mr. Bush isn't Ms. Cleo.
The quotes provided do not show that Bush lied.

I am not intentionally ignoring your other comments, but in the interest of brevity and legibility I will only be addressing on response in this post.

Bush stated that there was no doubt that Iraq had WMDs as of March 17 of 2003.

Bush was wrong; there was doubt. Either Bush was ignorant and willing to accept as proven fact things that should not have been, or he misrepresented the information he had to make it appear more concrete.

Bush was wrong on the WMD issue. He gambled on the fact that he would back his shit up after the war; it didn't happen that way. He should be accountable for that. He "lied", he gambled with the facts, and he was wrong. It didn't happen the way he claimed it would and the reality didn't back up his pre-war point of view.

Where that becomes intolerable is that his pre-war comments were the justifications presented to the public for going to war at all.

The facts haven't backed up his justification, so with hindsight his justifications for going to war were faulty.

That should have an impact on his job. If I did something similar in my job, I was be unemployed almost immediately. Why is he "allowed" to be treated differently?

[Adex_Xeda]

Your justification requires an established fact.
My justification requires an established threat.

Bush established that there was a dangerous threat. He didn't lie when presenting the arguements to establish this threat.

Vote him out for being wrong? sure
Vote him out for lieing? Unproven.

[Voronwë]

he probably didn't "Lie"

but he did probably intentionally distort the facts to push an agenda that has resulted in a military occupation that was improperly planned for from both a manpower as well as financial perspective.

Recall in April of last year a representative of the government was on Nightline saying that the US taxpayer would only spend "1.7 billion dollars" on the rebuilding of Iraq. Ted Koppel didnt believe the guy so he asked him the question like 5 times to give him every opportunity to clarify.

[Mak]

The only significant thing he did wrong was lying under oath, the rest of it is a matter for his wife and family. It has fuck all to do with you, and you have no right what-so-ever to question him about it.

I could not disagree more with that statement.

I absolutely have a right to hold my President to, at the very least- the same standards- that everyone else is held to. We can open that up to a lot more debate if you'd like, but there are a number of things, both actual and theoretical, that invalidate your statement.

Bullshit, what other possible circumstance would it be acceptable for a person to be questioned under oath about consentual sex outside of perhaps a divorce proceeding which again has nothing to do with you.

What standard are you talking about anyway? Pergury perhaps, sure, but he never should have had to answer that question.

What other possible circumstance?

He's the President of the United States. She was his intern. He was in a position of authority over her. In ANY branch of civil service, government service, military, and the private sector he was quilty of of sexual harrassment. Even if it's consensual, a third party can be negatively affected by it- and thus it is illegal, and certainly relevant.

He blew up an aspirin factory in the Sudan just a day or two before the whole Lewinsky thing really hit the news. Many people here, and most of the Muslim world, think that was just an attempt to divert attention from his adultery. You accuse Bush of doing far more than that for (arguably) less motivation, so I'm having a hard time understanding your stance here at all.

Adulterous affairs have bearing on security clearances, promotions, and station postings for military and gov't workers alike. Do I think he'd let himself be blackmailed by the commies because of it?- of course not. But, the standard shouldn't be lower for him than anyone else, should it?

He is a public official. He is the highest level of public official in the country. He has a higher standard of conduct than you or I do, because there is more at stake if he is compromised. At the VERY LEAST he is not any less accountable, so yes, as an elected public offical, he does have to answer questions like that. I'd say the very same thing for Bush, or ANY President.

Now I really have no desire to sidetrack this thread, or have yet another Clinton blowjob discussion, so I'm pretty much done here, but don't have a double standard. If Bush was getting ass on the side you'd be having a fucking aneurism and you know it.

[Voronwë]

the US government still holds the "aspirin factory" in Sudan was a chemical weapons facility.

and it is comical how people try to even compare a blowjob to a war that has resulted in 850 american military deaths, 2500 debilitating injuries among those troops, and over 10,000 civilian deaths. maybe it will be worth it in the long run, but Clinton's affair has nothing to do with anything currently going on in any of our lives.

[Forthe]

I find it laughable that we are so quick to condenm and protest our leaders yet we do not do the same for Saddam and Bin laden. Where is the outrage toward terrorism? Or did they win and you are too afraid to speak out?

2 scenarios:
1) Your dog kills your cat
2) Your child kills your cat

Which one disturbs you more? Does the fact that one disturbs you more than the other have any bearing on your acceptance of the other as permissable?

[Cartalas]

I find it laughable that we are so quick to condenm and protest our leaders yet we do not do the same for Saddam and Bin laden. Where is the outrage toward terrorism? Or did they win and you are too afraid to speak out?

2 scenarios:
1) Your dog kills your cat
2) Your child kills your cat

Which one disturbs you more? Does the fact that one disturbs you more than the other have any bearing on your acceptance of the other as permissable?

Not a very good comparison


Dog kills your cat = Nature at work while im sad my cat died its hard to punish the dog.

Child kills cat= Child should know better and disturbs me


Plus I hate cats

[Voronwë]

vet kills you cat and you pay him $100

[Forthe]

Your justification requires an established fact.
My justification requires an established threat.

Your justification is insane. Threat is a perception and easily manipulated. Facts while still a perception are much more dificult to manipulate and they are verifiable.

If I think my neighbor is a nutcase and intends to hurt my family, with no solid evidence to support my position, does that justify me breaking into his house and killing him? Do you think that defense would keep me out of prison afterwards?

This policy of pre-emption without solid evidence to justify pre-emption is criminal behaviour.

Bush established that there was a dangerous threat. He didn't lie when presenting the arguements to establish this threat.

Vote him out for being wrong? sure
Vote him out for lieing? Unproven.

The administration often (not always but enough to mislead) represented information as established facts when they were not. If I tell you I know something for certain when I do not is that a lie?

[Forthe]

I find it laughable that we are so quick to condenm and protest our leaders yet we do not do the same for Saddam and Bin laden. Where is the outrage toward terrorism? Or did they win and you are too afraid to speak out?

2 scenarios:
1) Your dog kills your cat
2) Your child kills your cat

Which one disturbs you more? Does the fact that one disturbs you more than the other have any bearing on your acceptance of the other as permissable?

Not a very good comparison

Dog kills your cat = Nature at work while im sad my cat died its hard to punish the dog.

Child kills cat= Child should know better and disturbs me

Plus I hate cats

Exactly Cart. Although I don't think you get it yet.

[masteen]

I agree with Cartalas. I hate cats.

[Cartalas]

I find it laughable that we are so quick to condenm and protest our leaders yet we do not do the same for Saddam and Bin laden. Where is the outrage toward terrorism? Or did they win and you are too afraid to speak out?

2 scenarios:
1) Your dog kills your cat
2) Your child kills your cat

Which one disturbs you more? Does the fact that one disturbs you more than the other have any bearing on your acceptance of the other as permissable?

Not a very good comparison

Dog kills your cat = Nature at work while im sad my cat died its hard to punish the dog.

Child kills cat= Child should know better and disturbs me

Plus I hate cats

Exactly Cart. Although I don't think you get it yet.

No I get it ,I just dont thing disturbed is the right word. Well Maybe for me anyways.

[Zaelath]

but don't have a double standard. If Bush was getting ass on the side you'd be having a fucking aneurism and you know it.

i
Actually no, I'm not part of the moral "majority" and I could care less if Bush was getting his knob polished by his transexual mexican housekeeper.

As for the position of authority over Monica shit, she's working very hard to make it clear that she persued the realtionship and wasn't just a poor start struck 23 year old (? not 100% on the age, but she was far from a wide eyed teen) overcome by fear and awe and compelled to please the mighty president.

You claim this was more than a politically driven witch hunt by the Republican party, so what would be the *legal* ramifications if he had admitted the relationship in session? And don't give me any military promotion mumbo jumbo, that's not relevant to a second term president.

I can't see any harm that would come to him from admitting it that wasn't purely personal or political.

[Siji]

He was found not guilty. 45-55 where the 55 guilty verdicts came from all 55 republicans.

Reversed numbers.

"February 12, 1999 The Senate acquits the President on both impeachment charges. With 67 votes required to convict on either count, the perjury charge fails, with 55 voting against and 45 in favor, while the obstruction of justice charge tally is 50-50."

Also, it was 80 million or so wasted on finding out whether he got an improper blowjob or not, not 40 million.

[Voronwë]

i do agree with the trailer, the whole point of it was to get him under oath, then they ask him questions really about anything.

it was an attempt by the Republican party to overturn the will of the people (an election result).

[Siji]

Kind of like in 2000.. if at first you don't succeed and all that.

[Rasspotari]

Not really. Iraq was obligated to show proof. They were to document the destruction of said weapons. They failed to do so.

and there is no way that that simply is the case because he didn't have anything to destroy ?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Not really. Iraq was obligated to show proof. They were to document the destruction of said weapons. They failed to do so.

and there is no way that that simply is the case because he didn't have anything to destroy ?

Much of that we sold to him. So no, that is not possible. lol

If you want to do some interesting reading, click here http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

[Kelshara]

Much of that you sold to him.. which requires massive specialized storage facilities not to decay!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Much of that you sold to him.. which requires massive specialized storage facilities not to decay!

I wish the UN would have just come and asked you before wasting all their time on this whole weapon thing. Boy will they get a good laugh when they find this out.

[Sueven]

I find it laughable that we are so quick to condenm and protest our leaders yet we do not do the same for Saddam and Bin laden. Where is the outrage toward terrorism? Or did they win and you are too afraid to speak out?

Honestly, I think that condemnation of Bin Laden and Hussein is just kind of assumed on a board like this, where just about the entire population is American, Canadian, or European. Unless someone states that they think Al Qaeda is really cool, I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt on this one. Furthermore, who the fuck would possibly be "too afraid" to speak out against Bin Laden? In America, at least, I can't imagine an easier, safer person to speak out against. It certainly takes more balls to speak out against a president who is approved of by 40 some percent of the country and controls actual power than it takes to speak out against a terrorist who is approved of by less than 1 percent (i'm guessing here) and who has only once in his lengthy career successfuly harmed American citizens on American soil? What an idiotic statement.

He blew up an aspirin factory in the Sudan just a day or two before the whole Lewinsky thing really hit the news. Many people here, and most of the Muslim world, think that was just an attempt to divert attention from his adultery. You accuse Bush of doing far more than that for (arguably) less motivation, so I'm having a hard time understanding your stance here at all.

You know, conservatives always accuse Clinton of not doing enough to combat Bin Laden. When he actually did do something about it, you claim that he was wagging the dog to distract from his blowjob. If Clinton had taken a glock and capped UBL himself that day, you would still be complaining that it was purely a PR maneuver. Not that Dick Clarke didn't pour enough dirt on that horses grave already.

And cats rule.
[/quote]

[Shizzle]

He was found not guilty. 45-55 where the 55 guilty verdicts came from all 55 republicans.

He still was impeached, that was the vote to remove him from office.

[Aruman]

If I think my neighbor is a nutcase and intends to hurt my family, with no solid evidence to support my position, does that justify me breaking into his house and killing him? Do you think that defense would keep me out of prison afterwards?

This policy of pre-emption without solid evidence to justify pre-emption is criminal behaviour.

What if your neighbor was known to have access to weapons which could easily destroy your home, thereby presenting a threat where he could do what he intends with little effort.

If I am not mistaken, Probable Cause allows Police Officers to break into any location where such a threat would be present to remove the threat.

Would you wait 10 years for your nutcase neighbor to surrender or allow a search for the suspected weapons, or would you rather have had an agency remove the possibility that your nutcase neighbor might have had such weapons as soon as possible? An agency that was capable of doing it that is.

[Kelshara]

I wish the UN would have just come and asked you before wasting all their time on this whole weapon thing. Boy will they get a good laugh when they find this out.

UN is well aware of it, dumbass. Which you would know if you actually ever stopped sucking off Rumsfeld long enough to read anything but propaganda.

Oh and the whole neighbor thingie just doesn't cut it.. slightly less casualties if you break down the neighbor's door and they are under your own country's law.

[Xzion]

If I think my neighbor is a nutcase and intends to hurt my family, with no solid evidence to support my position, does that justify me breaking into his house and killing him? Do you think that defense would keep me out of prison afterwards?

This policy of pre-emption without solid evidence to justify pre-emption is criminal behaviour.

What if your neighbor was known to have access to weapons which could easily destroy your home, thereby presenting a threat where he could do what he intends with little effort.

If I am not mistaken, Probable Cause allows Police Officers to break into any location where such a threat would be present to remove the threat.

Would you wait 10 years for your nutcase neighbor to surrender or allow a search for the suspected weapons, or would you rather have had an agency remove the possibility that your nutcase neighbor might have had such weapons as soon as possible? An agency that was capable of doing it that is.

What if your neighbor, has the ability to acess weapons which could easily destroy maybe 5% of your home, and your four other neighbors wich hold just as much resentment towards you have weapons that can destroy a good 8-9% of your home. Yet all your neighbors are scrawny little pussies compared to yourself, who is a strong ass motherfucker who is far more experianced in combat, and who has weapons that are at least 900% more powerful then all your neighbors put togeather. If your really scared about a specific neighbor,who holds no known threat to you but just happens to be a real asshole, you send your friend to his house to "check" for these weapons and see if he really has any, and is willing to use them against you. If your friend comes back from his house and tells you theres no weapons, then you leave your neighbor the fuck alone, because you are smart enough to realize that if you kill your neighbor and his 8 innocent children, then the entire neighborhood is going to hate you 800x more, making your home and your family even more vunerable to attacks.

[Zaelath]

And that one fat kid that's eyeing my donut, I can shoot him to protect myself, right?

While you're wanking on about your neighbour (that you conveniently forget lives 2 states away and has no car) try to imagine that the neighbour lives in an embassy and has diplomatic immunity. Then run your little vigilante wet dreams again, knowing that even the cops couldn't knock down that door.