Bush's Legacy

[Spider]

we all know what i think

[BABronco]

Bush has done a pretty bad job. But he has had to deal with alot more than most presidents have. I would say that history will judge him as a bad president if not one of the worse and I won't disagree. But for those who call him the worst president ever, as of right now, need to realize that history judges not that present. Gotta remember a very good portion of america hated lincoln. No, I am not comparing Bush to Lincoln because he couldn't hold a candle to him. But I'm just saying let history judge him before we call him the worst president ever.

[W*GS]

I'd put Bush easily in the top 10 of worst Presidents.

[BABronco]

I'd put Bush easily in the top 10 of worst Presidents.

He could very well end up there.

[Cito Pelon]

I've been able to intelligently assess Presidents since 1970, and I guess I'd rank them in this order right now:

1. Ford. This guy took over a nearly impossible situation, and made a smooth transition. People that were not living at that time really do not know how explosive the situation was. It was explosive. Not as explosive as the Nixon years, but Ford had to deal with the Nixon legacy and potential explosion that entailed, so that leads me into .....

2. Nixon - dude had his flaws, but that dude had tons of experience, he could run an Administration. Dude had so much stuff on his plate to digest and not diarrhea it. The two terms Nixon led the country were so f'ing crazy it was unbelievable. And it wasn't his fault. Those years were crazy. Riots by African Americans in every city. They dang near stopped the entire system. Those were crazy years from 1968 to 1974. The Mexican Americans were up in arms also, so there was that element of unrest in the West. La Raza, Black Panthers, hell I remember every Mexican or Black kid I got into a fight with back then told me win or lose, "My brother is a Black Panther/Brown Panther and he's gonna get you". It was pretty much open season on whites in those years in the cities. Nixon handled it pretty well.

3. Clinton. Dude was a consensus-builder, what more can one say. Need more of that these days.

4. GHB. Dude wasn't so bad. Pretty smooth dude.

5. Ronald Reagan. One trick pony. Boy, did he take care of the USSR problem, or what? Masterful job. Just plain masterful. Superb job, can't say enough about it. The rest was pretty ridiculous.

6. Jimmy Carter. Dude didn't have much of a clue.

7. GWB. This dude had no qualifications to begin with.

[El Minion]

Bush's Legacy? How about attempting to white washing history, for starters:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-u2ITs4yIAE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-u2ITs4yIAE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[gunns]

Bush has done a pretty bad job. But he has had to deal with alot more than most presidents have. I would say that history will judge him as a bad president if not one of the worse and I won't disagree. But for those who call him the worst president ever, as of right now, need to realize that history judges not that present. Gotta remember a very good portion of america hated lincoln. No, I am not comparing Bush to Lincoln because he couldn't hold a candle to him. But I'm just saying let history judge him before we call him the worst president ever.

Problem for Bush is that he created a lot of what he had to deal with. 9/11 didn't create the Iraq war, it was used to create the Iraq war.

[TailgateNut]

Bush will always be regarded by yours truly as an idiot with an evil puppetmaster. I truly believe he was elected on name recognition and by party voters who didn't care one iota about the country as long as their agenda was put in the forefront. The republican party as a whole should be held liable for the mess we are currently in . They are the sole entity who placed a complete failure into the top position in the US.
Evil Cheney couldn't get elected as president so he needed a helping hand, which his party found in Bush (the mentally challenged one). The repukes were tired of Clinton (he didn't fit their religious righty beliefs) and he HAD SEX just to have sex, which is foreign to them, (unless it's with the same sex and they must be underage). They had to replace a president who listened to the public with a president who would cater to big business and the religious nuts in this country regardless of consequence.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...he HAD SEX just to have sex, which is foreign to them, (unless it's with the same sex and they must be underage)

:giggle: ^5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

9/11 didn't create the Iraq war, it was used to create the Iraq war.

:yep:

Yep - it was no accident that some 40% of Americans believed Iraq and/or Saddam Hussein were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

And, according to the twisted right-wing logic we're hearing on Spider's fairness doctrine thread, any American who has a problem with the Bush administration's use of the media to disseminate such lies is a 'fascist' who "opposes free speech. "

:oyvey:

[W*GS]

And, according to the twisted right-wing logic we're hearing on Spider's fairness doctrine thread, any American who has a problem with the Bush administration's use of the media to disseminate such lies is a 'fascist' who "opposes free speech. "

It's not that you and your ilk have a "problem". It's that you want the State to step in and "fix" it.

Another not-so-subtle point that you continually miss in your ardor to smear those who think you're full of ****.

[gunns]

The repukes were tired of Clinton (he didn't fit their religious righty beliefs) and he HAD SEX just to have sex, which is foreign to them, (unless it's with the same sex and they must be underage).

They were tired of Clinton because he was a democrat. Each party tries to find dirt on the other and sex is about the only thing the Repubs can ever come up with. I believe they do it because of their followers being the religious right but definitely not because it's their own religious right beliefs. They don't follow those beliefs anymore than the Dem's do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They were tired of Clinton because he was a democrat. Each party tries to find dirt on the other and sex is about the only thing the Repubs can ever come up with.

Bingo.

There was a long GOP fishing expedition that led to quite a few dry holes before they finally hit paydirt with Monicagate.

http://www.bartcop.com/testing-presidents.jpg

[Chupacabra]

Success test - Legislative successes include:
NCLB...by identifying red state members of congress in trouble and holding town hall meetings in districts to have constituent pressures
1.35-trillion-dollar tax-reduction
Prescription drug bill (agenda theft)
9/11 allows following legislative successes: Homeland Security Dept., 87 bil supp. for Afghanistan, Iraq Resolution, Patriot Act
Legislative failures include (I'm missing some): SS reform, Immigration reform

Power test - Expanded exec. power through veto bargaining, line-item veto, "war time president"

Character test - Mobilizes country in time of crisis, legislative consistency, questionable decision making on Iraq, god complex ("decider"), prudence


Foreign policy - Taliban. Good execution in Afghanistan
TBD - Iraq...if Iraq stabilizes and becomes a functional democracy in however many years, could be a huge + that could be vital to future generations of American...if sectarian violence continues and Iraq govt fails, huge - that would send his legacy down the toilet.

As for Bush's presidential imperative to obtain and maintain public support...pre-2004 fairly successful, but post-2004 an utter failure, as Iraq is widely opposed

Time will tell of GW's legacy. He will certainly leave office with a dismall approval rating with hopes of following in Harry S. Truman's footsteps (legacy makes gains in years following). It should also be noted that he made decisions based on principles...whether you agree with his principles or not, for each his own.

Personally, I'd rank him in the middle 1/3 of presidents.

Since 1970... Reagan (no explanation needed), Clinton (triangulation was state of the art), Ford, GW, GB, Nixon, Carter (out of his depth)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ROFL!

I guess we know who voted "misunderstood genius ...years ahead of his time..."

:D

[TailgateNut]

Personally, I'd rank him in the middle 1/3 of presidents.




Hilarious!

[spdirty]

I'd put him right up there with Carter.

[Chupacabra]

ROFL!

I guess we know who voted "misunderstood genius ...years ahead of his time..."

:D

there was absolutely no middle ground.. i dont think anybody considers him a "misunderstood genius ...years ahead of his time..."
but i honestly dont consider him a crook or an idiot

if i could have a write in...itd prolly say "principle based decision maker who faced nearly unprecedented amount of adversity.....nonetheless had his share of successes and failures ......C+ presidency (much like his college career)"

[Chupacabra]

Hilarious!

I gave evidence and examples for my ranking.. Why don't you do the same?

[Chupacabra]

They were tired of Clinton because he was a democrat. Each party tries to find dirt on the other and sex is about the only thing the Repubs can ever come up with. I believe they do it because of their followers being the religious right but definitely not because it's their own religious right beliefs. They don't follow those beliefs anymore than the Dem's do.

My problem with Clinton.....is not that he had sex with another woman; altho I don't condone that and look for more integrity and family values in a president as one of his main function is the symbol....its that he committed perjury. He lied to the American people. Now it's going to take 30 seconds for someone to say GW lied to the American ppl about WMDs.. Well to that I say, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My problem with Clinton.....is not that he had sex with another woman; altho I don't condone that and look for more integrity and family values in a president as one of his main function is the symbol....its that he committed perjury. He lied to the American people.

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

Sounds like someone's memorized his talking points.

Clinton did not commit perjury. Lying and perjury (a legal term) are two different things.

Now it's going to take 30 seconds for someone to say GW lied to the American ppl about WMDs.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES:

Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A “High Crime”
by Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than twenty years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation, the Los Angeles Times and Salon.

The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment of any President or Vice President who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This applies to any serious abuses of power, whether or not they are actually crimes, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly committed numerous specific federal crimes while in office. This article focuses on a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371).

What is a conspiracy to defraud the United States?

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Put simply, it is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to “obstruct or impair” the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.
How do you prove a criminal conspiracy?

A criminal conspiracy is defined in the law as simply an agreement to commit a crime, but you don’t have to show that people wrote out an agreement or even explicitly said, “let’s do this criminal act…” Conspiracies are proved by evidence of what people do and say, both publicly and behind the scenes.
Isn’t that “circumstantial evidence?”

Yes it is and, as judges tell juries in courtrooms around the country every day, circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence.
What does it mean “to defraud?”

To defraud means to attempt to influence people to go along with your proposal by using deceit. The attempt does not actually have to succeed. The crime is complete once a person uses misrepresentation with the intent to provide a false picture. “Fraud” includes deliberate misrepresentations, outright lies, half-truths and statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. Bush and Cheney used all of these methods to convince the public and Congress to agree to their plan to invade Iraq.
What are some examples of Bush’s and Cheney’s misrepresentations?

Bush, Cheney and their top aides made hundreds of misrepresentations to deceitfully convince people to accept their plan. Here are a few examples:

1. Deliberate Misrepresentation- The linking of Iraq and 9/11

A deliberate misrepresentation is a statement or set of statements that might not be false in and of themselves, but are presented so as to give a false impression. In the case of the Bush/Cheney conspiracy to defraud, the best example of this is their repeated linking of Saddam or Iraq to the “lessons of 9/11.” The Bush administration used this device so often that it’s clear that it was a calculated and deliberate effort to provide a false impression that the two were linked -- even though, as Bush has admitted, they knew there was no link. It is no defense to a charge of fraud based on deliberate misrepresentation that the person’s statement was not literally false.

2. Outright Lie- “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in.”

Before the war, and as recently as March 21, 2006, President Bush said we invaded Iraq because “Saddam would not let the UN inspectors in.” That is an outright lie. The UN inspectors reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003 that, although the process was not perfect, Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the inspections, the UN team thought the process was working, and they wanted to complete it. President Bush told the UN inspectors to leave within 48 hours on March 16, 2003.

3. Half-truth- “Saddam’s son-in-law told us about biological and chemical Weapons.”

One of the half-truths most often repeated by Cheney, in particular, was that “we” (the U.S.) knew there were biological and chemical weapons, because Saddam’s son-in-law, Kamel Hussein, told U.S. agents about them when he defected. Apart from the fact that Kamel made these statements in 1995, so they proved nothing about the existence of weapons in 2003, Cheney only told half the story. The other half was that Kamel had said that they had destroyed the weapons, a fact confirmed by U.N. and U.S. inspectors.

4. Reckless Disregard - “Iraq is a Grave and Gathering Danger”

In criminal law, statements made with reckless disregard as to whether they are true or false are considered fraudulent. In other words, the law imposes a duty upon people who are trying to influence others to make important life decisions -- such as investments, large purchases, medical decisions, or, of course, agreeing to a war -- to make assertions only if they are actually backed up by facts, especially when the people speaking are seen as authority figures, such as the President and Vice President. So every time Bush and Cheney made statements such as “Iraq is a grave and gathering danger” or “We know there are weapons of mass destruction,” they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. If they had done their due diligence and examined the reports of our own intelligence community, they would have known that these statements were seriously in question, if not outright false. If they did not complete any due diligence before making the statements, they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way it’s fraud.

Does it Matter Whether Bush and Cheney actually believed there were WMD?

No, in criminal law it is not a defense to fraud that a person subjectively, that is, in his own mind, believed that the scheme would all work out, if he makes fraudulent misrepresentations in order to get people to go along with it. In other words, you can’t trick people into going along with your ideas, just because you think the ideas are good.
How was government “impaired and obstructed?”

Bush and Cheney’s fraudulent misrepresentations about the true state of affairs in Iraq was designed to convince the public to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat. They needed to convince the public that there was a dire emergency in order to convince Congress to authorize funds for the war. This scheme of misrepresentation obstructed the workings of government in a critical way -- it caused the most serious of governmental decisions to be made upon false information.
Doesn’t Congress have an obligation to question the president?

Congress does have an obligation to question the president, but that is a political issue. Congress’ inadequate response to the president’s fraud does not get the Bush administration off the hook for purposes of deciding whether they committed a crime. Courts always tell juries that persons charged with fraud cannot claim that their victims were too gullible, or should have known better.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/editorials/delavega_060421.html

[Hotrod]

Well hes obviously misunderstood

[Chupacabra]

Ha ha ha! ROFL!

Sounds like someone's memorized his talking points.

Clinton did not commit perjury. Lying and perjury (a legal term) are two different things.



CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES:

Misrepresenting the Truth in Order to Sell a War is A “High Crime”
by Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than twenty years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in The Nation, the Los Angeles Times and Salon.

The U.S. Constitution provides for impeachment of any President or Vice President who commits “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This applies to any serious abuses of power, whether or not they are actually crimes, but President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly committed numerous specific federal crimes while in office. This article focuses on a Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371).

What is a conspiracy to defraud the United States?

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States is a specific federal crime prohibited by Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Put simply, it is an agreement to use deceit and misrepresentation to “obstruct or impair” the normal functioning of government. It has been charged numerous times, including against defendants in the Watergate case and the Iran/contra scandal.
How do you prove a criminal conspiracy?

A criminal conspiracy is defined in the law as simply an agreement to commit a crime, but you don’t have to show that people wrote out an agreement or even explicitly said, “let’s do this criminal act…” Conspiracies are proved by evidence of what people do and say, both publicly and behind the scenes.
Isn’t that “circumstantial evidence?”

Yes it is and, as judges tell juries in courtrooms around the country every day, circumstantial evidence is just as important as direct evidence.
What does it mean “to defraud?”

To defraud means to attempt to influence people to go along with your proposal by using deceit. The attempt does not actually have to succeed. The crime is complete once a person uses misrepresentation with the intent to provide a false picture. “Fraud” includes deliberate misrepresentations, outright lies, half-truths and statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. Bush and Cheney used all of these methods to convince the public and Congress to agree to their plan to invade Iraq.
What are some examples of Bush’s and Cheney’s misrepresentations?

Bush, Cheney and their top aides made hundreds of misrepresentations to deceitfully convince people to accept their plan. Here are a few examples:

1. Deliberate Misrepresentation- The linking of Iraq and 9/11

A deliberate misrepresentation is a statement or set of statements that might not be false in and of themselves, but are presented so as to give a false impression. In the case of the Bush/Cheney conspiracy to defraud, the best example of this is their repeated linking of Saddam or Iraq to the “lessons of 9/11.” The Bush administration used this device so often that it’s clear that it was a calculated and deliberate effort to provide a false impression that the two were linked -- even though, as Bush has admitted, they knew there was no link. It is no defense to a charge of fraud based on deliberate misrepresentation that the person’s statement was not literally false.

2. Outright Lie- “Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in.”

Before the war, and as recently as March 21, 2006, President Bush said we invaded Iraq because “Saddam would not let the UN inspectors in.” That is an outright lie. The UN inspectors reported to the Security Council on March 7, 2003 that, although the process was not perfect, Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the inspections, the UN team thought the process was working, and they wanted to complete it. President Bush told the UN inspectors to leave within 48 hours on March 16, 2003.

3. Half-truth- “Saddam’s son-in-law told us about biological and chemical Weapons.”

One of the half-truths most often repeated by Cheney, in particular, was that “we” (the U.S.) knew there were biological and chemical weapons, because Saddam’s son-in-law, Kamel Hussein, told U.S. agents about them when he defected. Apart from the fact that Kamel made these statements in 1995, so they proved nothing about the existence of weapons in 2003, Cheney only told half the story. The other half was that Kamel had said that they had destroyed the weapons, a fact confirmed by U.N. and U.S. inspectors.

4. Reckless Disregard - “Iraq is a Grave and Gathering Danger”

In criminal law, statements made with reckless disregard as to whether they are true or false are considered fraudulent. In other words, the law imposes a duty upon people who are trying to influence others to make important life decisions -- such as investments, large purchases, medical decisions, or, of course, agreeing to a war -- to make assertions only if they are actually backed up by facts, especially when the people speaking are seen as authority figures, such as the President and Vice President. So every time Bush and Cheney made statements such as “Iraq is a grave and gathering danger” or “We know there are weapons of mass destruction,” they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. If they had done their due diligence and examined the reports of our own intelligence community, they would have known that these statements were seriously in question, if not outright false. If they did not complete any due diligence before making the statements, they were speaking with reckless disregard for the truth. Either way it’s fraud.

Does it Matter Whether Bush and Cheney actually believed there were WMD?

No, in criminal law it is not a defense to fraud that a person subjectively, that is, in his own mind, believed that the scheme would all work out, if he makes fraudulent misrepresentations in order to get people to go along with it. In other words, you can’t trick people into going along with your ideas, just because you think the ideas are good.
How was government “impaired and obstructed?”

Bush and Cheney’s fraudulent misrepresentations about the true state of affairs in Iraq was designed to convince the public to believe that Iraq presented an imminent threat. They needed to convince the public that there was a dire emergency in order to convince Congress to authorize funds for the war. This scheme of misrepresentation obstructed the workings of government in a critical way -- it caused the most serious of governmental decisions to be made upon false information.
Doesn’t Congress have an obligation to question the president?

Congress does have an obligation to question the president, but that is a political issue. Congress’ inadequate response to the president’s fraud does not get the Bush administration off the hook for purposes of deciding whether they committed a crime. Courts always tell juries that persons charged with fraud cannot claim that their victims were too gullible, or should have known better.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/editorials/delavega_060421.html


Clinton committed perjury in a testimony about his relationship to Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit (that was later dismissed). And his lying to the American people came about when he famously said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." I suppose I should have said "Clinton committed perjury. He also lied to the American people." Because the two dispicable incidents did occur at different times.

And as for memorizing my talking points...I'm glad you think so highly of my rhetoric, but regret to inform you that I made that statement on the fly. Give me time and I'll throw together an even more compelling argument.

As for de la Vega's piece.....if the democratic controlled senate had anything to impeach Bush on, it would have been done months ago. And from the statements she bases her argument on, then a majority of the senators who voted on the iraq resolution ought to be impeached too for their public comments about Sadaam and Iraq.

[Chupacabra]

Well hes obviously misunderstood

I agree whole heartedly.

[Play2win]

I agree whole heartedly.

Yes, BUSH doesn't want to be HITLER, he wants to be MUSSOLINI...

[TheDave]

This is great... It's been a while since i have been subjected to the "he has principles" excuse.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Clinton committed perjury in a testimony about his relationship to Lewinsky during a sexual harassment lawsuit (that was later dismissed).

Wrong. He didn't commit perjury. You don't seem to understand the difference between perjury (a legal term) and lying.

Perhaps this will help you understand the difference:


Myth: Clinton committed perjury.

Fact: Clinton’s answers were legally accurate.

Summary

Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath, about something that is important to the case. To prosecute a false statement, the government needs to prove somehow that the witness intended to lie, rather than he was mistaken or confused over the facts. To eliminate ambiguity, confusion and opportunities for lying, lawyers often reject common-sense definitions in favor of legal definitions, which are more carefully defined. A witness who answers a legal definition accurately, in spite of what common sense says, is not committing perjury. The only requirement for a defendant is to answer questions accurately; he is not obligated to help the prosecution bring himself down, and has a constitutional right to fight vigorously in his defense. In Clinton’s case, no accusation of perjury survives these observations.

Argument

Many believe that Clinton committed perjury – that is, he lied under oath – during the Paula Jones deposition (January 17, 1998) and the Grand Jury (August 17, 1998). However, the term "perjury" has been thrown around so loosely that it is important to go over its definition.

Perjury occurs when a person takes an oath to tell the truth and then says something he knows to be false. The mere existence of error in someone’s testimony is not enough to prove perjury. The government must prove that the person intended to lie, rather than he was simply mistaken or confused over the facts. The law requires either another witness or some other evidence that supports the accusation of lying under oath. Furthermore, not all lying under oath is perjury. The lie must be material – that is, important or relevant to the case. A murder suspect who falsely testifies that he ate cereal in jail that morning cannot be prosecuted for perjury over that irrelevant lie. (1)

Definitions of lying

It is also important to clarifying what "lying" is, as opposed to "evading," "misleading," or "incomplete answers." In the following examples, let's assume the respondent knows the full truth. Here is an example of a lie:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of apples.

Here is an evasion:

Q. What color is white?
A. I think it’s six o’clock.

Here is a misleading answer:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s a reflection of all colors. (Scientifically true, but evoking images of red, blue and yellow in the questioner’s mind does not lead him to the answer he was seeking.)

And here is an incomplete answer:

Q. What color is white?
A. It’s the color of bunnies. (Generally true, but not all bunnies are white.)

Only the first example, the lie, is genuinely deceptive. Evasive, misleading and incomplete answers are all technically true.

The law requires witnesses only to give technically true answers to questions under oath. Indeed, the Supreme Court has ruled that a wily defendent who gives evasive answers is not guilty of perjury. Furthermore, the 5th Amendment guarantees witnesses the right not to incriminate themselves. They are not obligated to volunteer more information than the questioner asks for, or to help the prosecution prove its case against them, or to offer unsolicited clarifications to ambiguous questions. Defendants have a constitutional right to fight vigorously for their defense; their only requirement is to answer the question accurately. It is up to prosecutors to fill in any gaps or dispel any confusion by asking follow-up questions.

In other words, our justice system is based on the adversarial process, in which it is up to prosecutors to prove their case, and defendants to prove theirs (namely, that the prosecution hasn't proven its case). Defendants are not obligated to help prosecutors, and prosecutors are not obligated to help defendants. So if a defendant resorts to evasive, misleading or incomplete answers, that is his right. Prosecutors must overcome any such attempts by asking follow-up questions.

Some might argue, "But the oath says ‘to tell the whole truth.’ An incomplete answer is not the whole truth." True, but no answer is the whole truth. You can describe a hundred things about even the simplest event, like putting down a book. What time of day did you put the book down? What was the book’s title? Where did you lay the book? Was it upside down? Why did you do so? How many pages had you finished? And so on, infinitely. Obviously, you cannot be expected to cram an infinite number of details into one answer. That is what follow-up questions are for.

Problems with prosecuting Clinton for perjury

There are four problems with the charges that Clinton committed perjury.

First, Starr never provided convincing evidence that it was Clinton’s intention to lie, rather than he was mistaken, confused, or honestly believed his interpretation of the court’s definitions.

Second, many of the alleged perjury charges were immaterial (irrelevant) to the case, and cannot be prosecuted.

Third, many of Clinton’s answers were technically true.

Fourth, the Republicans have taken the odd position that where Clinton and Lewinsky’s testimony differ, it must be Clinton who is lying. They conveniently neglect the possibility that Lewinsky might be lying, mistaken, confused, exaggerating the level of her romance, or coerced into her testimony by Starr’s heavy threats of prosecution. We know that Lewinsky entertained highly unrealistic fantasies, like Clinton would leave his wife for her. She also told her friends, family and therapist stories that were either clear lies or fantasies, like she and Clinton had sex in the Oval Office without any clothes on, that the president invited her to accompany him to Martha's Vineyard while the first lady was out of the country, and that the Secret Service took the president to her apartment for a tryst. Her testimony is therefore far from certain.

Perjury and legal definitions

Another common misperception is over the role of legal definitions. A famous example is the definition of "sexual relations." Many people are outraged that Clinton does not consider oral sex to be sex. Obviously, people have a common-sense definition of sex. As one Clinton critic wrote: "Sex is sex is sex is sex. I know sex when I see it."

But although everyone has a "common-sense" definition of sex, few of these definitions agree. In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact. (2) This statistic alone is an argument-stopper.

And the more you think about it, the more ambiguous the term "sex" becomes. There is a vast spectrum between an innocent kiss good-by and sexual intercourse. Where do you draw the line? For men who grew up in the 50s and 60s, a common analogy was the baseball diamond: the challenge was to get to first base, second base, third base, and then a home run. No one considered first base to be sex, but fourth base was clearly sex. And what about the differences between fondling, light petting, heavy petting, and sexual intercourse? Or a light hug, a prolonged hug, a romantic embrace and a passionate embrace? Or a platonic massage, a full-body massage and a sexual massage? If sex involves contact with the erogenous zones, then what about people with erogenous zones in unusual places, like their feet, earlobes or the back of their shoulders? Must clothes be on or off? Is lap-dancing "sex"? Is phone sex "sex"? Can you have sex with someone a thousand miles away, even though that person is arousing you? What about passionate encounters that don’t result in orgasm? What about unintentional encounters that do?

The ambiguity of common-sense definitions is what causes lawyers to agree to legal definitions. Legal definitions clearly state what a behavior is and is not. Far from obfuscating and confusing the issue, legal definitions are like dictionaries that clarify meaning and draw lines between concepts. They allow a person to know exactly what he’s talking about. And they not only protect defendants from accidental perjury charges, but allow prosecutors to see perjury more clearly and prosecute it more successfully.

The trick, of course, is to craft good legal definitions. The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky.

Many critics have exploded with rage over this, accusing the president of perjury. Oral sex is obviously sex, they claim. However, their argument is based on the common-sense definition of sex, which both teams of lawyers explicitly rejected. They agreed to a legal definition instead. One cannot simultaneously reject a common-sense definition of sex and then use it to disparage Clinton’s answer.

Other critics point to the illogical implications of Clinton’s answer, namely, that Ms. Lewinsky would have been having sex with him, but not he with her. This would indeed be impossible in the real world of common sense, but it would not be impossible in the theoretical world of legal definitions. (Although such a paradox implies the definition was badly crafted.) Again, it is unfair to judge Clinton’s answers by any other standard than the one he agreed to, and that standard was a legal definition.

Examination of specific perjury claims

The links below examine specific claims of Clinton's perjury. Before delving into these accusations, a quick background is necessary. Clinton is accused of perjury on two occasions:

1. The Paula Jones deposition on January 17, 1998.
2. Starr's Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998.

Here is the background to these two events:

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, claiming that he had sexually harassed her three years earlier. The Paula Jones case led to a deposition in January 1998, in which the Jones lawyers questioned witnesses about possible sexual activity and sexual harassment involving Bill Clinton. Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term. His answers convinced his enemies that he had committed perjury. Because Vernon Jordan was involved in both the Whitewater scandal and a job search for Ms. Lewinsky, Ken Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case, arguing that even if the charges were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment. However, Ken Starr held a Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998, in which Bill Clinton was questioned about alleged perjury in his deposition testimony. Clinton's enemies thought his answers in this second round of testimony produced new examples of perjury, and both his testimonies were presented in the Starr Report as grounds for impeachment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is great... It's been a while since i have been subjected to the "he has principles" excuse.

:~ohyah!: :giggle:

Isn't it amazing how they always manage to turn a thread about Bush's legacy into an attack on Clinton?

[Chupacabra]

Wrong. He didn't commit perjury. You don't seem to understand the difference between perjury (a legal term) and lying.

Perhaps this will help you understand the difference:



Someone knows how to google "clinton perjury" and cite the first thing it pulls up. I'm sorry for not following STEVEN KANGA's proof. And I don't subscribe to "That depends on what your definition of -is- is." bs. Clinton denied having sexual relations in a court of law. OK, his definition of sexual relations excludes oral sex...but the majority of Americans' definition of sexual relations DOES include oral sex. And the majority of Americans believe that Clinton DID committ perjury. Beyond that... he obstructed justice. He cheated on his wife. These are things I look down upon in regard to ANYONE..and for the president of the United States, the man who is sposed to symbolize both the values and the unity of the United States, to cheat on his wife WHILE IN OFFICE is terrible, immoral, and STUPID.

[Chupacabra]

:~ohyah!: :giggle:

Isn't it amazing how they always manage to turn a thread about Bush's legacy into an attack on Clinton?

For the record, I didn't parlay anything... Tailgatenut brought Clinton into it. Good call.

I am glad to talk about Bush and legacy all day without pulling the Clinton card.

My first post was in complete reference to Bush and his legacy. I laid out more facts and evidence than anyone else combined. I am yet to see a rebuttal.

[Chupacabra]

Someone knows how to google "clinton perjury" and cite the first thing it pulls up. I'm sorry for not following STEVEN KANGA's proof. And I don't subscribe to "That depends on what your definition of -is- is." bs. Clinton denied having sexual relations in a court of law. OK, his definition of sexual relations excludes oral sex...but the majority of Americans' definition of sexual relations DOES include oral sex. And the majority of Americans believe that Clinton DID committ perjury. Beyond that... he obstructed justice. He cheated on his wife. These are things I look down upon in regard to ANYONE..and for the president of the United States, the man who is sposed to symbolize both the values and the unity of the United States, to cheat on his wife WHILE IN OFFICE is terrible, immoral, and STUPID.

And I will back up my assertion of Americans' feelings about Clinton's perjury with a poll. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/10/poll/
Not with some unknown right wing civilian with no law background.

[Chupacabra]

Wrong. He didn't commit perjury. You don't seem to understand the difference between perjury (a legal term) and lying.

Perhaps this will help you understand the difference:

For anyone interested...here is a little autobiography of the law scholar LBF references: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Aboutme.htm

[Chupacabra]

For anyone interested...here is a little autobiography of the law scholar LBF references: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Aboutme.htm

I mean come on..the guy has a "major in Russian studies" !!!!

[Chupacabra]

I mean come on..the guy has a "major in Russian studies" !!!!

I'm just left wondering why Slick Willy didn't employ Steve Kangas to his legal team.. It would have been a landslide victory!

[Chupacabra]

I'm just left wondering why Slick Willy didn't employ Steve Kangas to his legal team.. It would have been a landslide victory!

I mean, he is the Santa Cruz Chess Club President..if thats not good qualifications I dunno what is

[Chupacabra]

This is great... It's been a while since i have been subjected to the "he has principles" excuse.

I make no excuses, sir. I think it is quite admirable for a policitian, esp. this day in age, to make decisions based on principles. I never claimed Bush was a top tier president. I argue that only history will tell because much of his policy outcome relies on the long term.

[Play2win]

Bottom line-

America was successful under the Clinton Administration, BUSH has become a complete FAILURE (which is something he always WAS...)

[Chupacabra]

Yes, BUSH doesn't want to be HITLER, he wants to be MUSSOLINI...

Yeah... real socialist that GW.

[Chupacabra]

Bottom line-

America was successful under the Clinton Administration, BUSH has become a complete FAILURE (which is something he always WAS...)

Please.... tell me of these failures?

[Play2win]

Please.... tell me of these failures?

Why don't you go give BUSH a Blow-Job in the oval office...

[Chupacabra]

Why don't you go give BUSH a Blow-Job in the oval office...

Typical.

[Chupacabra]

Why don't you go give BUSH a Blow-Job in the oval office...

BTW, you make yourself and your leftwing colleagues look great! Next time, you ought to actually try to debate.... You don't score if you don't put any shots on goal. :thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Someone knows how to google "clinton perjury" and cite the first thing it pulls up. I'm sorry for not following STEVEN KANGA's proof.

You can opt for the ad hominem all day long, but the fact that you don't know the difference between lying and perjury remains crystal clear.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Please.... tell me of these failures?

:rofl:

You need someone to explain Bush's failures?

Even your fellow Bush voters on this board can do that.

[Blueflame]

Please.... tell me of these failures?

First and most glaringly obvious: Iraq. We cannot win that war and should never have gone there.

[Chupacabra]

You can opt for the ad hominem all day long, but the fact that you don't know the difference between lying and perjury remains crystal clear.

I do know the difference. And I conceded that he was not charged with perjury. In my opinion, he did commit perjury. Sexual relations does include oral sex. Do you disagree?

I could argue Steven Kanga's proof...but what would that accomplish? I just found it hilarious that you would use his argument, not to mention that his is the first that pops up on google.

[Chupacabra]

:rofl:

You need someone to explain Bush's failures?

Even your fellow Bush voters on this board can do that.

Well I've explained a few of his failures while nobody else has. The failures I explained, in my opinion, don't warrant a bottom 10 ranking.

[Spider]

Please.... tell me of these failures?

LOL , Spent the last 7 years stoned or Drunk ?
Failures ?
1. No child left behind ROFL! ( Still cracks me up when i hear it ) Huge failure , unrealistic goals .....
2. SS privatization another huge failure , reason is Bush wanted ot tap S.S. to help pay for the Iraqi war .....
3. Immigration ...... Failure on all fronts ....
4. Iraqi War , colossal failure , not only did he bull**** us , he has no strategy , nothing ....... This failure alone outweighs any thing Bush did good ....
5. coalition of the willing............yeah .....
6.Securing the boarders and the ports ........ LOL , yeah chuck remember those ?
7. Debai port sales ........ yeah remember that ?
8. Mission accomplish ..cant forget that one ....
9. Warrentless wire taps .....
10. missile defense .....load of crap

[Chupacabra]

First and most glaringly obvious: Iraq. We cannot win that war and should never have gone there.

The war was won when we toppled Saddam's regime. The rebuilding phase has been the failure.

We took out a dictator that was found guilty of multiple war crimes.

Suppose Iraq reaches stability. Their government is a fully functional democracy. Sectarian violence ends. They become an ally with the US. Would you agree that the war yielded beneficial results for future generations of Americans?

[Chupacabra]

LOL , Spent the last 7 years stoned or Drunk ?
Failures ?
1. No child left behind ROFL! ( Still cracks me up when i hear it ) Huge failure , unrealistic goals .....
2. SS privatization another huge failure , reason is Bush wanted ot tap S.S. to help pay for the Iraqi war .....
3. Immigration ...... Failure on all fronts ....
4. Iraqi War , colossal failure , not only did he bull**** us , he has no strategy , nothing ....... This failure alone outweighs any thing Bush did good ....
5. coalition of the willing............yeah .....
6.Securing the boarders and the ports ........ LOL , yeah chuck remember those ?
7. Debai port sales ........ yeah remember that ?
8. Mission accomplish ..cant forget that one ....
9. Warrentless wire taps .....
10. missile defense .....load of crap

I give you 2, 3, 6, 7.

We won't know the outcome of Iraq for years.
IMO, his biggest failure has been immigration.

Know, I never claimed his presidency a success or a failure. I simply said he cannot be placed in the bottom 10 at this point. And in my opinion, he is in the middle 1/3 of presidents.

[Spider]

and last but not least

Osaama Bin ****ing Ladin ...........
Saddam wasnt **** ...... he couldnt even get himself out of Iraq ......

[TailgateNut]

His only failure has been trying to be the leader of the greatest nation on the planet. He has turned us into the laughing stock of the world. He has nominated the most unqualified morons to positions of national trust, safety and security. He has aligned himself with a core group who's only goal is to profit from their relationships with the goverment regardless of the costs to the average american citizen. He vacations while our soldiers are dieing horrible deaths in a war he justified with lies and fabrications. He is an embarrassment each time he opens his mouth in public. He spits on the Constitution. He spits on the Bill of rights. He is attempting to reincarnate the cold war with Russia. He has turned back the clock on the articles of the geneva convention, which in effect is placing our soldiers in grave danger if captured. He has total disregard for Separation of Church and state. He failed at attempting to repair the flaws with social security. He has failed to reign in the out of control medical costs and fees. He has created more terrorists than he ever apprehended. He vetoed the stem cell research bill which could have saved countless lives and suffering.

....I can go on....but talking about it makes me want to go out and kick a Bush Voter in the yarbells!

[TailgateNut]

[QUOTE=Chupacabra;1635653]The war was won when we toppled Saddam's regime. QUOTE]


Please feel free to tell that BS to the parents of the soldiers who have died since Your Majesty's defining moment. You know the "mission accomplished" speach.

What he really meant that he in fact had accomplished his mission, which always was to attack and occupy Iraq.

[Blueflame]

The war was won when we toppled Saddam's regime. The rebuilding phase has been the failure.

We took out a dictator that was found guilty of multiple war crimes.

Suppose Iraq reaches stability. Their government is a fully functional democracy. Sectarian violence ends. They become an ally with the US. Would you agree that the war yielded beneficial results for future generations of Americans?

Uh... no. Saddam was a tyrant; no doubt about that. But his government was a stable one...and secular; not a theocracy. With that stability removed, the country will be torn by civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites for literally decades, with our soldiers in the middle as targets for both sides, trying vainly to keep the peace. And the ensuing government form will most likely be some flavor of Muslim theocracy; not a democracy. Like most things Bush ever touched, Iraq is a massive and gigantic failure, fubared for generations to come.

Your last paragraph sounds really good, but not realistic. It's like... if I could point at dog droppings and instantly turn them into $100 bills, that would be nice, too, but that has about as much likelihood of happening as a stable, fully-functional democratic government in Iraq.

We can call it a "victory" when all of our soldiers are home, and not until then.

[TailgateNut]

I give you 2, 3, 6, 7.

We won't know the outcome of Iraq for years.
IMO, his biggest failure has been immigration.

Know, I never claimed his presidency a success or a failure. I simply said he cannot be placed in the bottom 10 at this point. And in my opinion, he is in the middle 1/3 of presidents.


Allright if in your opinion he's in the middle 1/3, who are in the bottom 1/3?

IMO, he's the f-ing worst! Period...and if he were a Democrat someone would have already shot his silly ass!

[TailgateNut]

It's like... if I could point at dog droppings and instantly turn them into $100 bills, that would be nice, too, but that has about as much likelihood of happening as a stable, fully-functional democratic government in Iraq.

.


Bravo!

[Spider]

I give you 2, 3, 6, 7.

We won't know the outcome of Iraq for years.
IMO, his biggest failure has been immigration.

Know, I never claimed his presidency a success or a failure. I simply said he cannot be placed in the bottom 10 at this point. And in my opinion, he is in the middle 1/3 of presidents.

1... has to be considered , that NCLBH is a mess , underfunded , and not very realistic , the NCLBH only function was to destroy the public school system in place for Christian private schools and vouchers ......
His Coalition fell apart back in 2005 , Problem was Bush sold it on a pack of bull**** , you cant hold a coalition together on suspect evidence .......
Mission accomplished is no where near close , only Iraqi themselfs can put it back together .......
the warrentless wiretaps , falls in line with Bush's thinking that he is above the law , perhaps I should have put that also .......

[Chupacabra]

1... has to be considered , that NCLBH is a mess , underfunded , and not very realistic , the NCLBH only function was to destroy the public school system in place for Christian private schools and vouchers ......
His Coalition fell apart back in 2005 , Problem was Bush sold it on a pack of bull**** , you cant hold a coalition together on suspect evidence .......
Mission accomplished is no where near close , only Iraqi themselfs can put it back together .......
the warrentless wiretaps , falls in line with Bush's thinking that he is above the law , perhaps I should have put that also .......

There was no political pressure on the intelligence recieved. Suspect intelligence, perhaps... But it is what it is. The Iraq resolution was a bi partisan vote and all should be held accountable. As for the mission being accomplished..The initial mission, to take out Saddam and his regime was accomplished. To establish a functional democracy, clearly has failed thus far.

I don't know enough about the NCLB...but the fact that he pushed it through legislation is impressive. It illustrates a legislative success for him and his presidency, the actual policy's outcome aside. I agree it will probably result in being another government beaurocracy that fails to accomplish half of its intended purpose.

The Patriot Act.... critisized for going too far... But history teaches us that liberties are restricted in times of war/crisis. I suppose the problem with this is that this time of crisis (terrorism) seems to be here for the long haul. If the program shows successes, ie terrorist cells are tapped in on, I can't be opposed.

I clearly stated that Bush has a "god complex," much like Woodrow Wilson. This is illustrated by calling himself the "decider."

[Chupacabra]

[QUOTE=Chupacabra;1635653]The war was won when we toppled Saddam's regime. QUOTE]


Please feel free to tell that BS to the parents of the soldiers who have died since Your Majesty's defining moment. You know the "mission accomplished" speach.

What he really meant that he in fact had accomplished his mission, which always was to attack and occupy Iraq.

It hasn't been a "war" since we toppled Saddam's regime. I'll say it...it's been an occupation. I will repeat what I've said, the rebuilding phase has been a failure.

To the parents of soldiers who have died.. I couldn't articulate it like John Mccain, given his military experience and greater knowledge on Iraq: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLDtbg7fxug#

[Spider]

There was no political pressure on the intelligence recieved. Suspect intelligence, perhaps... But it is what it is. The Iraq resolution was a bi partisan vote and all should be held accountable. As for the mission being accomplished..The initial mission, to take out Saddam and his regime was accomplished. To establish a functional democracy, clearly has failed thus far.

I don't know enough about the NCLB...but the fact that he pushed it through legislation is impressive. It illustrates a legislative success for him and his presidency, the actual policy's outcome aside. I agree it will probably result in being another government beaurocracy that fails to accomplish half of its intended purpose.

The Patriot Act.... critisized for going too far... But history teaches us that liberties are restricted in times of war/crisis. I suppose the problem with this is that this time of crisis (terrorism) seems to be here for the long haul. If the program shows successes, ie terrorist cells are tapped in on, I can't be opposed.

I clearly stated that Bush has a "god complex," much like Woodrow Wilson. This is illustrated by calling himself the "decider."

;D well we`agree on few things......thats`a start

[Chupacabra]

;D well we`agree on few things......thats`a start

Well there seems to be this overwhelming sentiment on this board among your left wing colleagues that if you agree with Bush on any number of issues, then you are a full fledge Bush supporter, hence the "Your Majesty" comment and the "Go give Bush a BJ" comment. It mimics the polarization of America today quite well. If you aren't 100% against Bush and every single policy, you are automatically a Bush supporter.

I never claimed GW was a great president or even a good one. I have simply stood by the argument that nobody, save a divine prophet, can be sure of his legacy. (However, this is an internet forum and threads of this sort are made for such venues) Many of his policies are yet to be determined and can go either way. And anyone who refuses to acknowledge the clear cut successes he has had, is ignorant to the facts. And conversely, anyone who ignores his failures, the same...which I have done.

Speaking of failures in regards to Iraq...I understand many believe Iraq is a complete failure. That is their opinion. Me....Well I'm not giving up on the leaders in our military or our military personel. Nor will I brand the war a failure or a loss. Our troops have not failed us. They have performed exceptionally in a f*cked up situation. We have rid the world of many evil terrorists and extremists.. And unfortunately the price of that has been ever brave, honorable and willing Americans.
Also, I think it would be ill advised to leave all at once.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I do know the difference. And I conceded that he was not charged with perjury.

Yes, you conceded the point after I called you on your original falsehood, for whatever that's worth.


In my opinion, he did commit perjury.

He was acquitted. Is your "opinion" based on some fact or other the special prosecutor and/or the House Republicans missed?

I'm sure Ken Starr would love to hear from you.


Sexual relations does include oral sex. Do you disagree?

It doesn't matter whether I agree or not. All that matters is whether or not Clinton's answers were consistent with the definition of sexual relations provided by the prosecutor.

In a deposition, the onus to provide such a definition is on the prosecutor.

I could argue Steven Kanga's proof...but what would that accomplish? I just found it hilarious that you would use his argument.

Yo do realize this is nothing but an ad hominem, don't you?

You're essentially suggesting that Steve K is wrong simply because he is Steve K - not because of some counterargument you have offered.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/dullness.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My problem with Clinton.....is not that he had sex with another woman; altho I don't condone that and look for more integrity and family values in a president as one of his main function is the symbol....its that he committed perjury.

ROFL!

Anyone else appreciate the irony here?

Your "problem" with Clinton is that he "committed perjury." (An assertion which, BTW, you subsequently conceded was false.)

Bush just commuted the sentence of a convicted perjurer - and you have no problem with that?

[BroncoBuff]

Of all the 43 presidents we've had, it would be hard to call him the WORST yet ... but Bottom 10 is an easy call. LABF lined out an excellent laundry lists of reasons in post #21, but I'll just get down and dirty with a Top 6:

1. He inherited a budget surplus and didn't touch his veto pen while Congress ran up record deficits
2. He sacrificed 3,500 (and counting) of America's Best for an ungrateful Iraqi people
3. He failed to apprehend and punish - or even try all that hard to apprehend and punish - 9/11 mega-criminal Osama bin-Laden
4. He tried to nominate a completely unqualified crony to the Supreme Court, and failed in humiliating fashion
5. He was in charge while the opinion of the USA, in the eyes of an ever-smaller world community, shrank to record lows
6. He scrapped U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and was humiliatingly spanked (is being spanked) by the judiciary


That oughtta do it - in a nutshell.

[BroncoBuff]

Well hes obviously misunderstood
I agree whole heartedly.

He was joking, knothead ....

[W*GS]

Well there seems to be this overwhelming sentiment on this board among your left wing colleagues that if you agree with Bush on any number of issues, then you are a full fledge Bush supporter, hence the "Your Majesty" comment and the "Go give Bush a BJ" comment. It mimics the polarization of America today quite well. If you aren't 100% against Bush and every single policy, you are automatically a Bush supporter.

You hit the nail on the head. Some folks 'round here believe that unless you're a Bush-basher as ardent and venomous as they are, you're a huge fan of his. I've tried, for years, to show how that's wrong, but they never listen.

[Chupacabra]

ROFL!

Anyone else appreciate the irony here?

Your "problem" with Clinton is that he "committed perjury." (An assertion which, BTW, you subsequently conceded was false.)

Bush just commuted the sentence of a convicted perjurer - and you have no problem with that?

This was a weasel move and a half and you know it. Whether he was convicted or not, he lied. He knew that he got head from Monica and answered "no, I did not have sexual relations." This argument could go on forever. I think it was a lie. To say that his definition of sexual relations excluded oral sex is outrageous. But it worked and so yes, I concede that point.
I have more problems with Clinton than just being a weasel.

But you need to understand something. Just because I have problems with Clinton, doesn't mean I'm claiming him to be a terrible president. As with Bush, I don't have to be 100% for/against him. There is middle ground. And that is something that is wrong with the polity today. I never claimed Willy was in the bottom 10 of presidents. I never made any claims about his legacy. I simply discussed what my problem with him is. You, sir, get defensive and assume that I'm flaming the man. I have problems with him. As I have problems with George W. Bush. And Gerald Ford. And JFK. And Abe Lincoln. And even George Washington. I could pick something that I don't like for just about every president.

I never commented on the communted sentence of Libby and I won't. I haven't briefed the case and don't intend to. And even if I did comment in defense of the decision, which I have not, excuse me for holding the president in higher esteem then the VP's chief of staff.

[Chupacabra]

He was joking, knothead ....

Nonetheless, I agree that he is misunderstood.

[TheDave]

I make no excuses, sir. I think it is quite admirable for a policitian, esp. this day in age, to make decisions based on principles. I never claimed Bush was a top tier president. I argue that only history will tell because much of his policy outcome relies on the long term.

Saying any politician acted solely on his/her principles is laughable... Pushing the idea that Bushii has any principles is even funnier. This is an administration that has taken corruption and cronyism to new levels. Suggesting that there is some type of "principled" leadership at work here is ridiculous.

[bendog]

Dave, I think you're unfair. Bushii's principals are play ground bullies rule and the rich are entitled to rule for their benefit, so his government is really based upon his principals.

[TheDave]

Dave, I think you're unfair. Bushii's principals are play ground bullies rule and the rich are entitled to rule for their benefit, so his government is really based upon his principals.

Actually, think those are Chenney's principles...;)

[bendog]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070702/ldb070702.gif

I think there's a distinction, though. Bushii seems to think that because he was born into the uber-rich, he has some entitlements. The legacy of his admininistration hopefully will be that the media and the voters are wary of a man who made a fortune off of taxpayers after his dad bought him a MLB team, and who was essentially drunk and stoned until age 40.

Cheney was born relatively poor. He is a chicken hawk who avoided vietnam while sending others to fight. He's a crook and war profiteer. But he gained power via competence. Unfortunately, he lacks the competence to actually set policy, and history has shown he's really only competent in carrying out policies set by more thoughtful people. Nixon, Reagan and BushI.

This poll is troublesome. I think shrub's both an idiot AND a criminal, so how do I choose?

[TailgateNut]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070702/ldb070702.gif



This poll is troublesome. I think shrub's both an idiot AND a criminal, so how do I choose?

It's a question of excuse his actions because he's an Idiot, or accuse the criminal.
I picked idiot with a criminal puppetmaster!

[Spider]

You hit the nail on the head. Some folks 'round here believe that unless you're a Bush-basher as ardent and venomous as they are, you're a huge fan of his. I've tried, for years, to show how that's wrong, but they never listen.

LOL too much .. you dug your own hole by defending Bush with Brining up clinton did this or did that .......... dont pass your own problems off onto the community of the board

[W*GS]

LOL too much .. you dug your own hole by defending Bush with Brining up clinton did this or did that .......... dont pass your own problems off onto the community of the board

Yah, right.

[TailgateNut]

This poll mirrors public sentiment. 22% approval rating:spit:

[bendog]

Well, bushii couldn't even lie competently about a war ... so incompetent criminal.

Conversely, LBJ wasn't discovered to have lied till he was dead, so you gotta give him at least half assed competence. FDR lied about what the navy was up to in the Atlantic, but hey, history showed he was right to have done so. Reagan lied about Nicaragua. But at least his guys had the decency to not only take one for the Gipper, but one guy even DIED. Now That's loyalty (-:

[Blueflame]

You hit the nail on the head. Some folks 'round here believe that unless you're a Bush-basher as ardent and venomous as they are, you're a huge fan of his. I've tried, for years, to show how that's wrong, but they never listen.

I'd suggest that you remove the log from your own eye before attempting to take the splinter from others' eyes W*GS... anytime anyone here criticizes Bush at all, the Clintons... or Kennedys are always brought into the discussion as if any complaint about the current administration automatically translates into complete and total hero worship of former presidents. It's hypocrisy to protest a broad-brush generalization of your own partisans while applying broad-brush generalization to others.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This was a weasel move and a half and you know it.

Not at all.

You said you had a problem with Clinton because he (allegedly) committed perjury (a claim from which you subsequently backed away.)

The "president" you support just commuted the sentence of a convicted perjurer, and you have no problem with that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd suggest that you remove the log from your own eye before attempting to take the splinter from others' eyes W*GS... anytime anyone here criticizes Bush at all, the Clintons... or Kennedys are always brought into the discussion as if any complaint about the current administration automatically translates into complete and total hero worship of former presidents. It's hypocrisy to protest a broad-brush generalization of your own partisans while applying broad-brush generalization to others.

What is it about W*GS and so many other bush apologists/GOP partisans that they believe the current administration's frauds and felonies can be automatically absolved simply by pointing to the records (comparable or not) of previous administrations?

One can't help but conclude that W*GS and his ilk suffer from some type of arrested moral development.

I can just imagine them as children:

"Yeah, dad, I broke that window with my baseball, but Johnny did the same thing last year, so you shouldn't hold me accountable or punish me."

[W*GS]

I'd suggest that you remove the log from your own eye before attempting to take the splinter from others' eyes W*GS... anytime anyone here criticizes Bush at all, the Clintons... or Kennedys are always brought into the discussion as if any complaint about the current administration automatically translates into complete and total hero worship of former presidents. It's hypocrisy to protest a broad-brush generalization of your own partisans while applying broad-brush generalization to others.

No.

The hypocrisy lies with those who refuse to realize that prior Presidents have committed the same (or worse) acts against the Constitution and our rights as Bush has. Bush is far from unique, sadly, and he isn't fantastically more odious - but then the entire lot of Presidents going back decades stinks to high heaven.

Don't get all high-n-mightly on me when it's your own double standards, selective blinders, and outright hypocrisy that does you in. Don't get all riled at me when all I do is point out the obvious.

[W*GS]

What is it about W*GS and so many other bush apologists/GOP partisans that they believe the current administration's frauds and felonies can be automatically absolved simply by pointing to the records (comparable or not) of previous administrations?

I've pointed the errors in the above to you many many times, yet you continue to make them. I can only conclude that you suffer from some type of cognitive deficit.

I can just imagine them as children:

"Yeah, dad, I broke that window with my baseball, but Johnny did the same thing last year, so you shouldn't hold me accountable or punish me."

It's more like "Yeah, dad, I broke that window with my baseball, but Johnny did the same thing last year, and you didn't punish him or even get upset with him at all, so why are you mad at me now?"

Perhaps the very simple analogy above will get through to you. I rather doubt it, however.

[Blueflame]

No.

The hypocrisy lies with those who refuse to realize that prior Presidents have committed the same (or worse) acts against the Constitution and our rights as Bush has. Bush is far from unique, sadly, and he isn't fantastically more odious - but then the entire lot of Presidents going back decades stinks to high heaven.

Don't get all high-n-mightly on me when it's your own double standards, selective blinders, and outright hypocrisy that does you in. Don't get all riled at me when all I do is point out the obvious.

Most of us acknowledge that past presidents have taken actions/signed legislation that we did not necessarily support. However, what's the point in railing about that now...years after the fact... other than to deflect valid criticism of the incumbent? Many of the things that are brought up (Chappaquiddick, anyone?) occurred before a lot of the posters here were even born, so why make "old news" an issue now, when nothing can be done about it? Shouldn't we be more concerned with what is happening now?

As an aside, I don't get riled over exchanges on an internet message board. But then I think you know that.

[W*GS]

Most of us acknowledge that past presidents have taken actions/signed legislation that we did not necessarily support. However, what's the point in railing about that now...years after the fact... other than to deflect valid criticism of the incumbent?

The "statute of limitations" on violations of our rights by Presidents never expires.

I strongly suspect that at least some of the crap prior Presidents pulled on us was met with approbation by the folks who are now all exercised over Bush. Every time one of you was happy a President (or other politician) increased the power of the State at the expense of our rights, you lost a little of your credibility when it comes to complaining about this President. Bush is merely exploiting the power of the State you gave him.

Many of the things that are brought up (Chappaquiddick, anyone?) occurred before a lot of the posters here were even born, so why make "old news" an issue now, when nothing can be done about it? Shouldn't we be more concerned with what is happening now?

Last time I checked, Ted Kennedy wasn't an historical footnote, long gone and mostly forgotten. He's about the most senior and respected (by some) Democrats in the Senate. He's the log in your party's eye - to go along with the logs on the GOP side.

Reading some of the posts here, one could get the impression that some people think everything was right and glorious in the ol' U.S. of A. until Bush took office, and then it all went to hell. I'm reminding you that the hole some believe the US is in didn't appear in Jan 2001 - and that some of you were manning shovels (and some still are) before then...

As an aside, I don't get riled over exchanges on an internet message board. But then I think you know that.

Fair enough.

[Blueflame]

The "statute of limitations" on violations of our rights by Presidents never expires.
I strongly suspect that at least some of the crap prior Presidents pulled on us was met with approbation by the folks who are now all exercised over Bush. Every time one of you was happy a President (or other politician) increased the power of the State at the expense of our rights, you lost a little of your credibility when it comes to complaining about this President. Bush is merely exploiting the power of the State you gave him.
No, Bush is expanding the power of the executive branch... with the complicity of a Republican majority in Congress (until six months ago) that neglected to do any oversight whatsoever... far beyond the wildest dreams of his predecessors.

Last time I checked, Ted Kennedy wasn't an historical footnote, long gone and mostly forgotten. He's about the most senior and respected (by some) Democrats in the Senate. He's the log in your party's eye - to go along with the logs on the GOP side.
Any current issues one has with Ted need to be taken up with the voters of Massachusetts who keep electing him. If you want to blame "me" personally for Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, fine. I've voted for both of them.

Reading some of the posts here, one could get the impression that some people think everything was right and glorious in the ol' U.S. of A. until Bush took office, and then it all went to hell. I'm reminding you that the hole some believe the US is in didn't appear in Jan 2001 - and that some of you were manning shovels (and some still are) before then...
Fair enough.
Bush is totally responsible for the war that has already taken more than 3,000 and soon will reach 4,000 of our brave young soldiers. And that number only accounts for the dead... there are thousands more who are horribly injured and maimed both physically and emotionally. Even though they still live, they will never be the same. I can't and won't forgive him for that. He'd best hope his God can.

[Cito Pelon]

. . . . . . . . . . .Personally, I'd rank him in the middle 1/3 of presidents.

Since 1970... Reagan (no explanation needed), Clinton (triangulation was state of the art), Ford, GW, GB, Nixon, Carter (out of his depth)

Interesting. As for what the future holds - just extrapolating a bit here, folks, since a "legacy" presupposes a future - I imagine the Big Five (the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council; Britain, China, France, the USA, and the USSR (now Russia) - better figure out they need to cooperate rather than try to carve out spheres of influence and defend those spheres against each other.

That stuff doesn't make much of a future. Been there, done that for about 400 years now. It's crap. We need to move onward from that rubbish heap of geopolitics. Time for a new phase.

Trouble is, no nation understands cooperation until they get the stuffing kicked out of them. Maybe it will work out, we'll see.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Most of us acknowledge that past presidents have taken actions/signed legislation that we did not necessarily support. However, what's the point in railing about that now...years after the fact... other than to deflect valid criticism of the incumbent? Many of the things that are brought up (Chappaquiddick, anyone?) occurred before a lot of the posters here were even born, so why make "old news" an issue now, when nothing can be done about it? Shouldn't we be more concerned with what is happening now?


:thumbsup:

Precisely the point that is so consistently lost on W*GS and his fellow BushCo apologists.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dragging Daddy Down

George W. Bush’s approval rating has now reached the political equivalent of absolute zero. Why, people are wondering all over the media, doesn’t the man do something about it? At least make an effort, for Christ’s sake. Don’t just stand there.

Fire Gonzales, for instance. Get out of Iraq, even. Anything. But no, he goes and gives a get-out-of jail card to Libby instead. Doesn’t he care about his place in history?

Actually he does. Bush cares very deeply about that very thing. He just has a different place in mind than we do.

Most of us presume, very naturally, that the president must prefer success over failure. This is what makes it so puzzling, so incomprehensible, to watch the man cling so stubbornly to failed policies and people.

But this presumption ignores the entire arc of Bush’s life. For him, success is failure. For him, victory never meant surpassing his father; it meant letting him down. The younger Bush’s career can only be understood as a lifelong obsession with disappointing the father he so plainly hates.

Bush followed his father’s footsteps through Yale, as a pilot, as a candidate for Congress, and as a Texas businessman. Unable to fill any of those footprints, he made each one seem unimportant by pretending contempt for it.

He got C’s where his father got A’s; he dodged the combat flying that made his father a hero; he burned through the seed money his father’s friends gave him; he failed in the oil business which had made his father rich. Time after time daddy bailed him out; time after time, he failed again until the last bail-out left him as the front man for the investors in a baseball team.

Then, with no effort on his own part, Bush was taken in hand by a sleazy political op who realized that the father’s name and money would be enough to elect the wayward son governor of Texas. (In fact, a significant percentage of Texas voters thought the son was his father.) And next thing you know, Rove had hand-carried his meal ticket into the White House.

Take that, you old fart, junior must have told himself as he took the oath of office. You ain’t so hot. Any a$$hole can get to be president. But that wasn’t enough. Deep inside, where the snakes writhed in the wayward son’s unconscious, there was still work to do.

What better way to humiliate his father than to degrade the supreme office the old man had spent his life to reach? What sweeter revenge than to slime, like a slug, the presidency itself? And so he enlisted Rumsfeld and Cheney, his father’s ancient enemies, to help in the symbolic killing of his father.

A successful presidency, the junior Bush must have known in his heart, was beyond his limited capacities. Just as well, too, since becoming a better president than his father would have had the wrong effect entirely. It would have made the old bastard proud.

The point had never been to make his father proud — that would have required effort— but to make him sad and angry. His role wasn’t the good son, it was the black sheep.

And now George W. Bush had been given the power to put his father through the greatest disappointment of them all. He would become, and nobody could stop him, the worst president in history.

http://badattitudes.com/MT/

[W*GS]

No, Bush is expanding the power of the executive branch... with the complicity of a Republican majority in Congress (until six months ago) that neglected to do any oversight whatsoever... far beyond the wildest dreams of his predecessors.

Clinton ran roughshod over the Congress with his use of the Justice Department to de facto legislate. FDR tried to pack the SCOTUS with additional justices to his political liking, until he got yanked back. Nixon played all sorts of political tricks. Truman, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, GHWB and Clinton all got us into wars without a declaration of war, which only Congress can grant.

You missed my main point, however, which is that you and the other Lefties have been pushing for more and more power to be given to the State, without a single thought about the consequences. When a megalomaniac Republican (who's felt no shame about his trampling of our rights) became President, you Lefties were shocked (shocked!) that he used the power of the State against us. You're getting what you deserved, in short - the truly unfortunate thing being that the rest of us who know better are getting shafted right alongside you. When are you going to learn that power corrupts?

Any current issues one has with Ted need to be taken up with the voters of Massachusetts who keep electing him. If you want to blame "me" personally for Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, fine. I've voted for both of them.

You're a sucker, just like the voters in Massachusetts. Think of it this way - you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Bush is totally responsible for the war that has already taken more than 3,000 and soon will reach 4,000 of our brave young soldiers. And that number only accounts for the dead... there are thousands more who are horribly injured and maimed both physically and emotionally. Even though they still live, they will never be the same. I can't and won't forgive him for that. He'd best hope his God can.

All of what you say is true - except that you're forgetting that your Democrats are just as covered in the blood of our soldiers as Bush is. The excuses they've offered for refusing to stand up to Bush are pathetic. Overall, you're getting the government you deserve - good and hard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/3735/georgesays8hs3.jpg

[W*GS]

Show me where I deflected, LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd suggest that you remove the log from your own eye before attempting to take the splinter from others' eyes W*GS... anytime anyone here criticizes Bush at all, the Clintons... or Kennedys are always brought into the discussion...

Yep.

W*GS is the poster boy for "two wrongs make a right" ethics.

[W*GS]

Yep.

W*GS is the poster boy for "two wrongs make a right" ethics.

Hardly. You're the national spokesperson for the "GOP wrongs are the purest evil, Dem wrongs don't even exist" line o' spin.

[TailgateNut]

Yep.

W*GS is the poster boy for "two wrongs make a right" ethics.

Two wrongs???

[Spider]

Two wrongs???

what W*GS does is , compare Clintons wrongs to Bush's and make it a wash .

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

what W*GS does is , compare Clintons wrongs to Bush's and make it a wash .

Exactly.

W*GS believes Bush can be automatically exonerated for any instance of wrongdoing by simply pointing to some instance of wrongdoing, real or imagined, comparable or not, on the part of some Democrat or other.

That's W*GS' "legacy" on the Orange Mane.

:D

[W*GS]

W*GS believes Bush can be automatically exonerated for any instance of wrongdoing by simply pointing to some instance of wrongdoing, real or imagined, comparable or not, on the part of some Democrat or other.

Nope.

I merely illustrate that Bush's wrongs have a long lineage of wrongs by Presidents, including Democratic ones. You're not even willing to concede that - that Democratic Presidents have made colossal mistakes. Even Bush's Iraq fackup is comparable to LBJ's Vietnam fackup. Why do you resist such common sense?

[Bronco Bob]

Exactly.

W*GS believes Bush can be automatically exonerated for any instance of wrongdoing by simply pointing to some instance of wrongdoing, real or imagined, comparable or not, on the part of some Democrat or other.

:D

Fox Noise has built an entire cable network on the same tactic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fox Noise has built an entire cable network on the same tactic.

True that is.

And W*GS has obviously spent some time watching Faux News.

:D

[Bronco Bob]

Nope.

I merely illustrate that Bush's wrongs have a long lineage of wrongs by Presidents, including Democratic ones. You're not even willing to concede that - that Democratic Presidents have made colossal mistakes. Even Bush's Iraq fackup is comparable to LBJ's Vietnam fackup. Why do you resist such common sense?

I'm not sure what your point in doing that is though. Are you trying to justify
Bush's actions? Or are you being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative?
What's the difference what has happened in the past?
How does that solve what is going on right now? Or is your claim that
because it has happened in the past we should just let it slide and let
it keep on happening with no effort to do anything about it?

[W*GS]

True that is.

And W*GS has obviously spent some time watching Faux News.

:D

Next to none, actually. I spend very little time watching MSM TV news.

[W*GS]

I'm not sure what your point in doing that is though. Are you trying to justify Bush's actions?

No. Putting them into proper historical context.

People who rail on and on about Bush lying us into a war that has cost billions and billions of dollars and thousands of American lives act like that's a new thing, unique to Bush, and has never ever happened before. They're wrong. Obviously they've forgotten (or don't want to remember) Vietnam and LBJ.

What's the difference what has happened in the past?

That's not a very wise attitude. The past cannot be changed, but it should inform our choices about the future, and dictates a fair chunk of our present.

How does that solve what is going on right now? Or is your claim that because it has happened in the past we should just let it slide and let it keep on happening with no effort to do anything about it?

That take is entirely wrong. My point is that we have failed to learn the lessons of history. Presidents lie, and do very bad things. Bush is not alone in that regard, not by a long shot.

[Cito Pelon]

GWB's legacy won't amount to much, since he did nothing statesmanlike in all these years. Went from the highest ever rating post-9/11 to one of the lowest ever in five years. That's buffoonery. Slapstick stuff. One would think a slapstick scriptwriter would have to make that scenario up, it couldn't really happen in real life. A comitragedy I guess is the description.

GWB was never qualified in the least for the job. Never even close. He had his Pop lining up support for him behind the scenes, had some real slick political operatives, had charm, had that podium glare, had presence, had friends and colleagues that could help him administrate the Top Job. He had everything except for substance. GWB was always a caricature of a leader, an actor playing a part. Fred Thompson strikes me the same way.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not sure what your point in doing that is though. Are you trying to justify
Bush's actions?

Definitely.

It's clear that W*GS doesn't want accountability for this administration insofar as his only response to BushCo misdeeds is to deflect attention to previous (read: Democratic) administrations. This is exactly the same tactic used by Bush's most hardcore supporters (see Libby commutation debate for the most recent example.)

[W*GS]

It's clear that W*GS doesn't want accountability for this administration insofar as his only response to BushCo misdeeds is to deflect attention to previous (read: Democratic) administrations. This is exactly the same tactic used by Bush's most hardcore supporters (see Libby commutation debate for the most recent example.)

:bs:, but what else does LABF have?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS' Orange Mane Legacy:

Providing cover for the Bush Crime Family since 2004.

http://www.bartcop.com/by-coronet3.jpg

[W*GS]

LABF's legacy?

Unwarranted personal attacks, ad hominem, character assassination, smears, slurs, lies, deceptions, double standards and hypocrisy.

As for "covering" for Bush - I've done none of that, whereas LABF has definitely taken Chavez' back time and again, obviously so. In short, LABF is pathetic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Deflection isn't the only tactic W*GS and those who defend Bush have in common.

Projection, i.e., accusing his opponents of doing exactly what he does, is also part of the playbook.

http://www.bartcop.com/exec-07-privilege.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/approval-freedom.jpg

[W*GS]

Deflection isn't the only tactic W*GS and those who defend Bush have in common.

You use deflection all the time - somehow, regardless of the thread, you always bring Bush into the conversation, so you can reheat all your tired rhetoric. So, you have something in common with Bushies.

Projection, i.e., accusing his opponents of doing exactly what he does, is also part of the playbook.

You're the one who projects your faults on to others. I do not.

[W*GS]

Go through all of my posts, LABF, and find an example of one of my lies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...and he huffed and he puffed and he still couldn't make folks forget how he spent the better part of the last seven years covering Bush's flank...

:D

http://www.bartcop.com/camp-daoud.jpg

[W*GS]

LABF can't back up his assertions with the facts.

Just like the rightards and the Bushies. He's not their mirror image at all - more like one of them. A pathological liar, in short.

[Blueflame]

Clinton ran roughshod over the Congress with his use of the Justice Department to de facto legislate. FDR tried to pack the SCOTUS with additional justices to his political liking, until he got yanked back. Nixon played all sorts of political tricks. Truman, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, GHWB and Clinton all got us into wars without a declaration of war, which only Congress can grant.
Clinton did not "run roughshod" over the Republican Congress. If he truly had or exercised such power over them, they wouldn't have dared to attempt to impeach him for lying about sex.

None of those former presidents pushed through laws to give the executive branch the power granted to it via the Patriot Act. And none of them violated the law via illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant from the FISA court either.

You missed my main point, however, which is that you and the other Lefties have been pushing for more and more power to be given to the State, without a single thought about the consequences. When a megalomaniac Republican (who's felt no shame about his trampling of our rights) became President, you Lefties were shocked (shocked!) that he used the power of the State against us. You're getting what you deserved, in short - the truly unfortunate thing being that the rest of us who know better are getting shafted right alongside you. When are you going to learn that power corrupts?
And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush wields near-absolute power.

You're a sucker, just like the voters in Massachusetts. Think of it this way - you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
No, I'm not a sucker... while there are rare exceptions to this generality, I'm usually quite pleased with the way my Senators vote and that's what every voter does... choose the candidate who most closely shares their own concerns about the issues that face the country.

It appears that you and I have different definitions of "the problem"... an individual who always goes to the polls and votes is, imho, part of the solution. It's the apathetic individuals who don't bother to participate in the democratic process... who never vote... who are the problem, as far as I'm concerned. Why is it that so many people neglect their civic duty? ???

All of what you say is true - except that you're forgetting that your Democrats are just as covered in the blood of our soldiers as Bush is. The excuses they've offered for refusing to stand up to Bush are pathetic. Overall, you're getting the government you deserve - good and hard.

Damn those Democrats for believing the Bush/Cheney/PNAC lies they were fed.

Bush was always... always... going to attack Iraq. With or without justification because it was step one of the PNAC playbook.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://www.bartcop.com/camp-daoud.jpg

LOL

That pic is just horrible man.

[freak6]

Bush will always be regarded by yours truly as an idiot with an evil puppetmaster. I truly believe he was elected on name recognition and by party voters who didn't care one iota about the country as long as their agenda was put in the forefront. The republican party as a whole should be held liable for the mess we are currently in . They are the sole entity who placed a complete failure into the top position in the US.
Evil Cheney couldn't get elected as president so he needed a helping hand, which his party found in Bush (the mentally challenged one). The repukes were tired of Clinton (he didn't fit their religious righty beliefs) and he HAD SEX just to have sex, which is foreign to them, (unless it's with the same sex and they must be underage). They had to replace a president who listened to the public with a president who would cater to big business and the religious nuts in this country regardless of consequence.


Tailgate, when I get out of the Corps, I'm bringing the beers to YOUR tailgate!!!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Bush was always... always... going to attack Iraq. With or without justification because it was step one of the PNAC playbook.
This is absolutely correct! Only the few Bush groupies left don't understand or protest ignorance to this fact.

[W*GS]

Clinton did not "run roughshod" over the Republican Congress.

He certainly did with his use of the Justice Department to extort hundreds of billions from the tobacco industry, the costs of which they promptly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices. Regulation of business is a power of the legislative branch, i.e., Congress, not the Justice Department. Read "The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton" sometime.

If he truly had or exercised such power over them, they wouldn't have dared to attempt to impeach him for lying about sex.

That impeachment was a farce.

None of those former presidents pushed through laws to give the executive branch the power granted to it via the Patriot Act.

Congress passed that legislation, with little debate or discussion. I hold the 145 Democrats in the House and the Democrats in the Senate as guilty as the GOP in letting that abomination pass. Why were the Dems asleep at the wheel on that one?

And none of them violated the law via illegal wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant from the FISA court either.

That's hard to tell, since the FISA court is secret. Certainly Bush's wiretapping program is a violation of our rights, but the Dems let him have that power.

And absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bush wields near-absolute power.

Not quite.

No, I'm not a sucker... while there are rare exceptions to this generality, I'm usually quite pleased with the way my Senators vote and that's what every voter does... choose the candidate who most closely shares their own concerns about the issues that face the country.

I call you a "sucker" because you think the State will protect you. Haven't you learned that that isn't true?

It appears that you and I have different definitions of "the problem"... an individual who always goes to the polls and votes is, imho, part of the solution. It's the apathetic individuals who don't bother to participate in the democratic process... who never vote... who are the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

The mere act of voting isn't sufficient to make one a good citizen. It depends on whom one votes for as well.

Why is it that so many people neglect their civic duty? ???

It's probably partly because the candidates that get vomited at us are so loathsome. Did you really like Kerry that much?

Damn those Democrats for believing the Bush/Cheney/PNAC lies they were fed.

Exactly. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Stupidity and incompetence are suitable excuses for the Democrats.

Bush was always... always... going to attack Iraq. With or without justification because it was step one of the PNAC playbook.

Exactly. And the Dems gave him the authority to do so.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Speaking of Bush groupies...

:D

[W*GS]

You implied I was a liar, LABF. Prove it.

[BroncoBuff]

I just posted this elsewhere, but it fits better here in a "Bush Legacy?" thread ...


"We'll wait for the verdict of history," excuse, eh?

Okay, fine. Let's look ahead, shall we? Exactly how will Bush-co be viewed 100 years from now? Most of the issues we discuss here have very little import on history ... but 9/11 will. It will be paramount: "Islamic militants attack America, as religious violence causes the toppling of two of the 5 tallest buildings in the world at the time." Yeah ... I'm kinda sure that'll make the history books. And I feel certain these history books will, when recounting this period, echo:

"Americans stood by for the remaining 7-plus years of his presidency, as Bush failed to apprehend and punish 9/11 mega-criminal Osama bin-Laden. This failure contributed in large part to a swelling of the ranks of militant Islam around the globe during the first decade of the 21st Century, as new recruits the world over rallied to bin-Laden's message of hate. Ironically, Bush's 2004 re-election was aided by the apparent misconception by the electorate that he would be the better candidate to fight just such terror."

And history won't give much credence to the "Tora-Bora is too tough of terrain" excuse. If we had (and if we still would) commit sufficient resources to the search, we could and would apprehend the #1 domestic criminal in the history of the United States!!! THIS is the shame of this presidency - or it will be when history is told. If I had advised Kerry in 2004, this issue would have been my #1 issue ... to the virtual exclusion of everything else. "Where is the man who toppled those towers, sir?! Why has this man not been brought to justice?!" Over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...... Kerry probably wimped out on that idea with a limp excuse, "but what iof he finds Osama in these last two months? Then we're sunk."

I say ATTACK THAT! Bush's strength in every 2004 pre-election poll was national defense, and protection from terror. Even the "soccer moms" who always leaned Democrat were voting Bush because of that. Well, I say use Karl Rove's strategy - "Attack your opponent's strength."

"Where is the man who toppled those towers, sir?! Why has this man not been brought to justice?!"Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ...... that's what history will sieze upon: "Radical Islam swelled and metasticized as they exalted the name of bin-Laden in the years following 9/11."

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Where is the man who toppled those towers, sir?! Why has this man not been brought to justice?!"
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

[Blueflame]

He certainly did with his use of the Justice Department to extort hundreds of billions from the tobacco industry, the costs of which they promptly passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices. Regulation of business is a power of the legislative branch, i.e., Congress, not the Justice Department. Read "The Rule of Law in the Wake of Clinton" sometime.
Tobacco remains the only product on the market that... when used as directed... will kill you.

That impeachment was a farce.
The whole investigation was.... from the USSC decision that a sitting president could face civil litigation to Ken Starr's "blank check", very costly fishing expedition that yielded next to nothing for 70 million taxpayer dollars, to the stunning hypocrisy of GOP Congressmen who voted to impeach Clinton while many of them either currently or in their past, had mistresses of their own... it was nothing but a farce.

Congress passed that legislation, with little debate or discussion. I hold the 145 Democrats in the House and the Democrats in the Senate as guilty as the GOP in letting that abomination pass. Why were the Dems asleep at the wheel on that one?
Uh... anthrax letters mailed only to Democrats? What ever happened to trying to catch that particular terrorist? There were only a handful of individuals capable of making the anthrax...

That's hard to tell, since the FISA court is secret. Certainly Bush's wiretapping program is a violation of our rights, but the Dems let him have that power.
No, Alberto Gonzales signed off on giving him that power after both Ashcroft and Comey declined to do so. (btw...isn't that "use of the Justice Department"?)

Not quite.
Well, no one stopped him from following the PNAC plan to invade Iraq... who's gonna stop him from going on into Iran and Syria (PNAC playbook step two)?

I call you a "sucker" because you think the State will protect you. Haven't you learned that that isn't true?
Where did you ever get the idea that I'd depend on the State to ensure my personal security? They certainly dropped the ball for a lot of Americans on 9/11, didn't they?

The mere act of voting isn't sufficient to make one a good citizen. It depends on whom one votes for as well.
Well, I won't be voting for the "robber barons".

It's probably partly because the candidates that get vomited at us are so loathsome. Did you really like Kerry that much?
He was a lot better than the guy we ended up with (thanks a lot Blackwell... )

Exactly. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Stupidity and incompetence are suitable excuses for the Democrats.
Y'know, Congress is supposed to be able to believe what they're told by the executive branch... the executive branch isn't supposed to be a bunch of lying sacks of excrement who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the butt. I'll take "stupid and incompetent" over "greedy, evil, and corrupt" any day.

Exactly. And the Dems gave him the authority to do so.
Again, the Dems didn't have the clout (numbers/votes) to stop the lockstep GOP rubberstamp Congress from giving him the authority regardless.

[W*GS]

Tobacco remains the only product on the market that... when used as directed... will kill you.

Doesn't matter. When the Justice Department is used to extort money from any legitimate business, the rule of law, the balance of powers, and the Constitutional foundation of our system is damaged. Period.

Uh... anthrax letters mailed only to Democrats? What ever happened to trying to catch that particular terrorist? There were only a handful of individuals capable of making the anthrax...

The Democrats were afraid so they signed off on the PATRIOT ACT? I didn't realize they were such chickens.

No, Alberto Gonzales signed off on giving him that power after both Ashcroft and Comey declined to do so. (btw...isn't that "use of the Justice Department"?)

You can keep excusing the Democrats as cowards, idiots, and incompetents, but those are hardly good selling points.

Well, no one stopped him from following the PNAC plan to invade Iraq... who's gonna stop him from going on into Iran and Syria (PNAC playbook step two)?

The Democrats, if they had the balls.

Where did you ever get the idea that I'd depend on the State to ensure my personal security? They certainly dropped the ball for a lot of Americans on 9/11, didn't they?

I don't mean just personal security. The State is a bigger threat to your rights than anything else, and yet you continually turn over more and more of your rights to it (by being a Democrat and a lefty, that's axiomatic). Why?

Well, I won't be voting for the "robber barons".

As if voting for the Dems is better.

Y'know, Congress is supposed to be able to believe what they're told by the executive branch... the executive branch isn't supposed to be a bunch of lying sacks of excrement who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the butt. I'll take "stupid and incompetent" over "greedy, evil, and corrupt" any day.

It's your stupids and incompetents who let the greedy evil ones get their way. Why do you still support them?

Again, the Dems didn't have the clout (numbers/votes) to stop the lockstep GOP rubberstamp Congress from giving him the authority regardless.

The Dems hardly even tried.

[Blueflame]

Doesn't matter. When the Justice Department is used to extort money from any legitimate business, the rule of law, the balance of powers, and the Constitutional foundation of our system is damaged. Period.
Is using the Justice Department to extort money from a "legitimate business" (not sure I'd characterize Big Tobacco that way, but hey) worse than using the Justice Department to authorize torture, extraordinary rendition, and illegal wiretaps on Americans?

The Democrats were afraid so they signed off on the PATRIOT ACT? I didn't realize they were such chickens.
Um... people died from that anthrax... the threat was very clear.

You can keep excusing the Democrats as cowards, idiots, and incompetents, but those are hardly good selling points.

The Democrats, if they had the balls.

I don't mean just personal security. The State is a bigger threat to your rights than anything else, and yet you continually turn over more and more of your rights to it (by being a Democrat and a lefty, that's axiomatic). Why?

As if voting for the Dems is better.

It's your stupids and incompetents who let the greedy evil ones get their way. Why do you still support them?

The Dems hardly even tried.

So rather than assigning responsibility to the ones who actually put us in this mess, we'll instead blame the minority party for failing to prevent it? Where's the logic in that?

[W*GS]

Is using the Justice Department to extort money from a "legitimate business" (not sure I'd characterize Big Tobacco that way, but hey) worse than using the Justice Department to authorize torture, extraordinary rendition, and illegal wiretaps on Americans?

Neither is legitimate. Do you concede that using the JD to de facto legislate is a violation of the separation of powers? Besides, how do Bush's crimes excuse Clinton's?

Um... people died from that anthrax... the threat was very clear.

Still doesn't excuse the Dems' approval of the PATRIOT Act. That's inexcusable.

So rather than assigning responsibility to the ones who actually put us in this mess, we'll instead blame the minority party for failing to prevent it? Where's the logic in that?

It's hardly the case that the Dems fought valiantly and came up just short. They were willing collaborators in the whole mess.

Partisan excuse-making doesn't cut it with me. I'd be ashamed to be a Republican - or a Democrat. Why aren't you?

[Blueflame]

Neither is legitimate. Do you concede that using the JD to de facto legislate is a violation of the separation of powers? Besides, how do Bush's crimes excuse Clinton's?
Is the shakedown of Big Tobacco still ongoing? We all know that torture, extraordinary rendition, and illegal wiretapping are. I'm much more concerned about current abuses than past ones.

Still doesn't excuse the Dems' approval of the PATRIOT Act. That's inexcusable.
A lot of people would consider a genuine death threat a pretty good impetus for behaviors they might not engage in otherwise. Anyway, it's not like the rubberstamp Republicans weren't going to pass it regardless.

It's hardly the case that the Dems fought valiantly and came up just short. They were willing collaborators in the whole mess.
Some probably were. Lieberman was calling himself a "Democrat" back then, so I'll give you that one. He was a willing collaborator. But some Democrats were against it but were outvoted by the RRM's (rubberstamp Republican majority).

Partisan excuse-making doesn't cut it with me. I'd be ashamed to be a Republican - or a Democrat. Why aren't you?
Excuse-making, eh? When Republicans have a majority in the House and in the Senate, with a Republican president, and rightwingers on the USSC, the fiasco that follows is not bi-partisan.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm much more concerned about current abuses than past ones.

A concern that is utterly foreign to W*GS, it would seem.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FO3i6uf_W6s"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FO3i6uf_W6s" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[TailgateNut]

Tailgate, when I get out of the Corps, I'm bringing the beers to YOUR tailgate!!!

When you get out, you just carry your ass to my tailgate, I'll provide everything else!

[W*GS]

Is the shakedown of Big Tobacco still ongoing?

Well, yes.

We all know that torture, extraordinary rendition, and illegal wiretapping are. I'm much more concerned about current abuses than past ones.

I'm concerned with all abuses of State power - because past ones are often used as justification for current ones.

A lot of people would consider a genuine death threat a pretty good impetus for behaviors they might not engage in otherwise. Anyway, it's not like the rubberstamp Republicans weren't going to pass it regardless.

It's not clear to me that the anthrax attack was related to the passage of the PATRIOT Act. That the GOP was going to pass it anyway doesn't excuse the Democrats (the majority of them in the House and all the Dem senators less one) who voted for it. There's no shortage of blame to attach to the Dems.

Some probably were. Lieberman was calling himself a "Democrat" back then, so I'll give you that one. He was a willing collaborator. But some Democrats were against it but were outvoted by the RRM's (rubberstamp Republican majority).

In the House, 66 Dems opposed it, 145 approved it. In the Senate, all the Dems except Feingold voted for it.

Excuse-making, eh? When Republicans have a majority in the House and in the Senate, with a Republican president, and rightwingers on the USSC, the fiasco that follows is not bi-partisan.

Like I said, if the Dems had fought valiantly, you'd have a point. As it was, they were little more than sheep in sheep's clothing. It's safe to say that expecting the Democrats to undo the damage done by the GOP and Bush is extremely wishful thinking. Indeed, both parties take full advantage of the abuses perpetrated by the other when they're in power - extension of the reach of the State is one thing they have in common.

[Blueflame]

Well, yes.
Then couldn't the current administration have done something to change it? With all 3 (or is that 4? :P) branches of government under Republican control, doing everything else they want, I'd say the answer is "yes".

I'm concerned with all abuses of State power - because past ones are often used as justification for current ones.
I'm more concerned with current ones... y'know, the ones that could possibly be stopped if the people/Congress were motivated enough to try. Past abuses... all we can do is document them in the history books.

It's not clear to me that the anthrax attack was related to the passage of the PATRIOT Act. That the GOP was going to pass it anyway doesn't excuse the Democrats (the majority of them in the House and all the Dem senators less one) who voted for it. There's no shortage of blame to attach to the Dems.
Why do you suppose Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet were taking Cipro before the anthrax letters were sent? (logical answer: they knew it was coming) Of course the anthrax was related to the passage of the Patriot Act... it happened at the exact same time.

In the House, 66 Dems opposed it, 145 approved it. In the Senate, all the Dems except Feingold voted for it.
... without having enough time to even read the thing, much less engage in any debate about it.

Like I said, if the Dems had fought valiantly, you'd have a point. As it was, they were little more than sheep in sheep's clothing. It's safe to say that expecting the Democrats to undo the damage done by the GOP and Bush is extremely wishful thinking. Indeed, both parties take full advantage of the abuses perpetrated by the other when they're in power - extension of the reach of the State is one thing they have in common.
If the Dems had fought valiantly, they would have been crushed under the heel of the RRM (rubberstamp Republican majority) and labeled "unpatriotic". "terrorist sympathizers" "Al-Qaeda supporters" and worse. If you recall, opposing Bush in any way, shape, or form was viewed as tantamount to treason in the weeks immediately following 9/11.

[W*GS]

Then couldn't the current administration have done something to change it? With all 3 (or is that 4? :P) branches of government under Republican control, doing everything else they want, I'd say the answer is "yes".

Why do you expect me to defend the GOP? Show me examples of where I've done so - remember, being opposed to the far-Left agenda and ideology leaves a huge amount of room to be opposed to the GOP agenda and ideology.

I'm more concerned with current ones... y'know, the ones that could possibly be stopped if the people/Congress were motivated enough to try. Past abuses... all we can do is document them in the history books.

And learn from them, hopefully. Given the current state of politics and the American people, I seriously doubt that. Most folks seem to be bent either on revenge or using power when they have it to screw their "enemies", regardless of the collateral damage to our rights. It's safe to say that neither the GOP nor the Dems are free of those base impulses.

Why do you suppose Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet were taking Cipro before the anthrax letters were sent? (logical answer: they knew it was coming) Of course the anthrax was related to the passage of the Patriot Act... it happened at the exact same time.

Do you have some links, preferably not referenced via Daily Kos or some other whacko website, that show these assertions to be true?

... without having enough time to even read the thing, much less engage in any debate about it.

Indeed. The Dems chickened out.

If the Dems had fought valiantly, they would have been crushed under the heel of the RRM (rubberstamp Republican majority) and labeled "unpatriotic". "terrorist sympathizers" "Al-Qaeda supporters" and worse. If you recall, opposing Bush in any way, shape, or form was viewed as tantamount to treason in the weeks immediately following 9/11.

Meaning the Dems were spineless. Believe it or not, but doing right isn't always easy. The Dems took the expedient and politically-safe path and gave Bush whatever he wanted. The loyal opposition failed, miserably - they didn't even really try.

[Spider]

LOL w*gs reminds of Repuke Dan Burton ........ all he could do was bring up Clinton .

[Blueflame]

Why do you expect me to defend the GOP? Show me examples of where I've done so - remember, being opposed to the far-Left agenda and ideology leaves a huge amount of room to be opposed to the GOP agenda and ideology.
Your history on this forum is to deflect all criticisms of the GOP with an immediate mention of some indiscretion done by a Dem. Consistent blasting of Dems while giving a total pass to the GOP isn't going to escape anyone's notice, W*GS....

And learn from them, hopefully. Given the current state of politics and the American people, I seriously doubt that. Most folks seem to be bent either on revenge or using power when they have it to screw their "enemies", regardless of the collateral damage to our rights. It's safe to say that neither the GOP nor the Dems are free of those base impulses.
Nonetheless, the current full-scale attack on the Constitution is being waged by the GOP. No former president has ever abolished habeas corpus...

Do you have some links, preferably not referenced via Daily Kos or some other whacko website, that show these assertions to be true?
How about the Washington Post? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15269-2002Jun7?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/aponline201158_000.htm

Or Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2953.shtml

The anthrax letters addressed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were postmarked October 9. The Patriot Act was passed in Congress roughly two weeks later.

Indeed. The Dems chickened out.
A genuine death threat has been known to do that to people.

Meaning the Dems were spineless. Believe it or not, but doing right isn't always easy. The Dems took the expedient and politically-safe path and gave Bush whatever he wanted. The loyal opposition failed, miserably - they didn't even really try.
It would have been useless anyway because the RRM had enough votes to pass the legislation regardless of the Democratic votes.

[Spider]

Your history on this forum is to deflect all criticisms of the GOP with an immediate mention of some indiscretion done by a Dem. Consistent blasting of Dems while giving a total pass to the GOP isn't going to escape anyone's notice, W*GS....




LOL no W*GS would rather lie and blame everyone else for picking on him ....... W*GS wont own up to his post ........

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your history on this forum is to deflect all criticisms of the GOP with an immediate mention of some indiscretion done by a Dem. Consistent blasting of Dems while giving a total pass to the GOP isn't going to escape anyone's notice, W*GS....


Yep.

He hasn't succeeded in fooling anyone here, yet he persists.

Is that the definition of insanity, or what? :crazy:

[W*GS]

Your history on this forum is to deflect all criticisms of the GOP with an immediate mention of some indiscretion done by a Dem.

:bs:

What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the Dems here - the usual cast of characters. So many of you make it sound like the predations on our rights perpetrated by the Republicans are particularly evil and unique in our history. You're often quite wrong, and it's often members of your party that have engaged in some of the most egregious violations of our rights.

That you will not see that is merely an indication of the hyperpartisan nature of your blinders.

Consistent blasting of Dems while giving a total pass to the GOP isn't going to escape anyone's notice, W*GS....

I don't give the GOP a pass - and this isn't a GOP-bash-only board, last I checked. You're just miffed that I hold your beloved Dems to the same standard as you hold the GOP. Sauces and kettles fit in here somewhere...

Nonetheless, the current full-scale attack on the Constitution is being waged by the GOP. No former president has ever abolished habeas corpus...

Check your history. Lincoln did. FDR's internment of thousands of Americans without charge and for breaking no law is IMHO the worst violation of our rights in US history. Never mind the litany of Presidents going back decades who have waged war on our rights in the guise of fighting the "War on Drugs".

How about the Washington Post? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15269-2002Jun7?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011023/aponline201158_000.htm

Or Judicial Watch?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml
http://www.judicialwatch.org/2953.shtml

The anthrax letters addressed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were postmarked October 9. The Patriot Act was passed in Congress roughly two weeks later.

Thanks for the pointers. I'll look 'em up.

It would have been useless anyway because the RRM had enough votes to pass the legislation regardless of the Democratic votes.

The Dems could have stood up to Bush. Most caved.

Neither party has the truthful right to say that in this post-9/11 world they worked to preserve our rights. Both have been eager to trash them because of the opportunity presented by al-Qaeda. All governments expand their powers in times of "crisis", real (al-Qaeda) or manufactured (drugs).

[Cito Pelon]

Speaking of GWB and his idiocy, lack of comprehension, outright lying, etc., I'll add this:

During the 2004 debate between Kerry and GWB, Kerry mentioned the lack of trained Iraqi forces. Bush responded very forcefully, "That's absurd!!!"

That serves to illustrate - again - the empty-headedness of GWB.

[TailgateNut]

Speaking of GWB and his idiocy, lack of comprehension, outright lying, etc., I'll add this:

During the 2004 debate between Kerry and GWB, Kerry mentioned the lack of trained Iraqi forces. Bush responded very forcefully, "That's absurd!!!"

That serves to illustrate - again - the empty-headedness of GWB.


Who was it (one of the presidential candidates) that called Bush "BRAIN DEAD"? I Love it!

Our president: BRAIN DEAD! ...and 23% of the population still supports him....they are also BRAIN DEAD!

[SoCalBronco]

Only three more weeks till camp...I can't wait.

[Requiem]

Personally, what legacy?

Regardless of where you see yourself fitting on the political spectrum, regardless of what party you affiliate yourself with, and regardless if you're missing a chromosone. . . or two. . . or three. . . point is, you have to see how bad this **** was at being President.

Could any of his supporters actually come up with. . . oh, five to ten important things he did that were actually good for America, such as support or passage of laws that have made America a better place. . . or how some of his policies have helped America become a better place?

Slap this bitch next to Jimmy Carter and call it a day.

[TailgateNut]

Only three more weeks till camp...I can't wait.


One of the 23%tile group chimes in.

[W*GS]

Why do you suppose Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet were taking Cipro before the anthrax letters were sent? (logical answer: they knew it was coming) Of course the anthrax was related to the passage of the Patriot Act... it happened at the exact same time.

I read the links you offered, and couldn't find any definitive information that the Bush, Cheney, or anyone else at the WH was taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks. Mostly the articles talked about JW's FOIA request for information about the alleged incident of WH staffers being put on Cipro on 9/11. Googling around led me to many of the whack-job websites repeating the story that a Dr. Jerome Hauer was the person responsible for that (secret) decision, but I couldn't find anything worthwhile on him either - mostly the same circular story. It's not at all clear to me that anyone at the WH was taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks - the "best" evidence I've seen is "press reports", but unspecified.

As such, I can't say that there's proof of your statement.

[TailgateNut]

Slap this b**** next to Jimmy Carter and call it a day.


:rofl:

[TailgateNut]

What is scary is that there are 6 posters here who feel he's a misunderstood genius. ROFL! Are you f-ing kidding me. Misunderstood maybe! Genius???ROFL! ROFL! ROFL!

[SoCalBronco]

One of the 23%tile group chimes in.

That's odd, I don't recall recently saying I approved of President Bush's handling of his office. Guess you went assuming again. I don't really care for President Bush, the only President I have ever truly admired was President Nixon, everyone else was basically crap to me (although there are bits and pieces of each administration that I have liked).

Try again.

[TailgateNut]

That's odd, I don't recall recently saying I approved of President Bush's handling of his office. Guess you went assuming again. I don't really care for President Bush, the only President I have ever truly admired was President Nixon, everyone else was basically crap to me (although there are bits and pieces of each administration that I have liked).

Try again.

Then don't be a richard, and take your training camp comment some where else. Hijack another thread!

You admired Nixon? For what, if I may ask?

[Bronco Bob]

:bs:

What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the Dems here - the usual cast of characters. So many of you make it sound like the predations on our rights perpetrated by the Republicans are particularly evil and unique in our history. You're often quite wrong, and it's often members of your party that have engaged in some of the most egregious violations of our rights.

That you will not see that is merely an indication of the hyperpartisan nature of your blinders.



I don't give the GOP a pass - and this isn't a GOP-bash-only board, last I checked. You're just miffed that I hold your beloved Dems to the same standard as you hold the GOP. Sauces and kettles fit in here somewhere...




Though when Rascal or Dman or the other Pubs start a thread bashing the
Dems you are strangely silent, with the possible exception of a rather
weak defense of the Global Warming theory. Your protests that you
are neither Pub nor Dem might be a little more believable if you would
defend the Dems when they are being bashed on this board as vigorously
as you do the Pubs when they are being bashed.

[SoCalBronco]

Then don't be a richard, and take your training camp comment some where else. Hijack another thread!

You admired Nixon? For what, if I may ask?

Outstanding foresight on a number of policy issues, mostly related to foreign affairs, but also as to domestic affairs, especially in environment, civil rights and government reorganization. I studied the Nixon Presidency in great detail for about seven years, and I came to the conclusion that his contributions are severly underrated and people are often ignorant in discussions of his Presidency.

But, as you said, I should not "hijack" the thread.

[W*GS]

Though when Rascal or Dman or the other Pubs start a thread bashing the Dems you are strangely silent

As if you, TailgateNut, Blueflame, Bronco Beerslug, Spider, Rigs11, LABF, Ro and the others need me to help you pile on.

with the possible exception of a rather weak defense of the Global Warming theory.

You don't even want to go there. Let Spider fill you in on that.

Your protests that you are neither Pub nor Dem might be a little more believable if you would defend the Dems when they are being bashed on this board as vigorously as you do the Pubs when they are being bashed.

Explain to me why I should defend the Dems? Are you and your fellow Dems and lefties up to the job? As for "defending" the Republicans, show me how I've done that. Illustrating that the hyperpartisan whining from you and your fellow Dems and lefties is a double standard (at best) or hypocrisy (at worst) doesn't defend the Republicans - it points out those two (unfavorable) attributes.

Suppose Ted Bundy calls Jeffrey Dahmer a sick bastard. If I point out to Ted that he's no less sick that Dahmer, does that mean I support Dahmer? Explain that "logic" to me.

[Blueflame]

:bs:

What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the Dems here - the usual cast of characters. So many of you make it sound like the predations on our rights perpetrated by the Republicans are particularly evil and unique in our history. You're often quite wrong, and it's often members of your party that have engaged in some of the most egregious violations of our rights.

That you will not see that is merely an indication of the hyperpartisan nature of your blinders.
What a crock. No one's buying it, W*GS.

I don't give the GOP a pass - and this isn't a GOP-bash-only board, last I checked. You're just miffed that I hold your beloved Dems to the same standard as you hold the GOP. Sauces and kettles fit in here somewhere...
Yes, you do give the GOP a total pass, deflecting all censure solely toward Dems.

Check your history. Lincoln did. FDR's internment of thousands of Americans without charge and for breaking no law is IMHO the worst violation of our rights in US history. Never mind the litany of Presidents going back decades who have waged war on our rights in the guise of fighting the "War on Drugs".
None of those former presidents was ever alleged to have referred to the Constitution as a "g*ddam*ed piece of paper"... or to have said "It would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship... as long as I'm the dictator".

Thanks for the pointers. I'll look 'em up.
The Dems could have stood up to Bush. Most caved.
Neither party has the truthful right to say that in this post-9/11 world they worked to preserve our rights. Both have been eager to trash them because of the opportunity presented by al-Qaeda. All governments expand their powers in times of "crisis", real (al-Qaeda) or manufactured (drugs).

No, the Dems could not have stood up to Bush. As the minority party, they did not have the numbers to do anything at all to prevent the actions taken by the Bush administration and the RRM.

What ever did happen to the leader of Al Qaeda? Unpunished and unrepentant... and still a threat to America, the last I heard. But it's all good, because we caught and executed Saddam... ::)

[Blueflame]

I read the links you offered, and couldn't find any definitive information that the Bush, Cheney, or anyone else at the WH was taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks. Mostly the articles talked about JW's FOIA request for information about the alleged incident of WH staffers being put on Cipro on 9/11. Googling around led me to many of the whack-job websites repeating the story that a Dr. Jerome Hauer was the person responsible for that (secret) decision, but I couldn't find anything worthwhile on him either - mostly the same circular story. It's not at all clear to me that anyone at the WH was taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks - the "best" evidence I've seen is "press reports", but unspecified.

As such, I can't say that there's proof of your statement.
I believe the source of the "press reports" was Ari Fleischer...

So... if the administration stonewalls a FOIA request, withholding the documentation, that's ample evidence for you that the evidence does not exist. Gotcha.

[Blueflame]

As if you, TailgateNut, Blueflame, Bronco Beerslug, Spider, Rigs11, LABF, Ro and the others need me to help you pile on.
Which is to say that the forum's conservatives do need your help in piling on? (Just clarifying here)

You don't even want to go there. Let Spider fill you in on that.
Explain to me why I should defend the Dems? Are you and your fellow Dems and lefties up to the job? As for "defending" the Republicans, show me how I've done that. Illustrating that the hyperpartisan whining from you and your fellow Dems and lefties is a double standard (at best) or hypocrisy (at worst) doesn't defend the Republicans - it points out those two (unfavorable) attributes.

Suppose Ted Bundy calls Jeffrey Dahmer a sick bastard. If I point out to Ted that he's no less sick that Dahmer, does that mean I support Dahmer? Explain that "logic" to me.
Bad analogy... it's more like if another person (not either of the serial killers personally) said "That Jeffrey Dahmer was a sick SOB"... and you immediately deflected, saying "Well Ted Bundy was much, much worse". In that instance, yes, it would certainly appear that you were giving Dahmer a pass because Bundy was more heinous, thereby minimizing Dahmer's acts... unless you also specifically expressed disapproval of Dahmer's crimes.

[W*GS]

What a crock. No one's buying it, W*GS.

Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, you do give the GOP a total pass, deflecting all censure solely toward Dems.

Wrong. Apparently you only pay attention when I take Dems to task, and overlook it when I take the GOP to task. Given the ideological breakdown here (heavily lefty), that's not surprising.

None of those former presidents was ever alleged to have referred to the Constitution as a "g*ddam*ed piece of paper"... or to have said "It would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship... as long as I'm the dictator".

Alleged quotes are one thing, actions are another. Bush has been plenty despicable - but so have past Presidents.

No, the Dems could not have stood up to Bush. As the minority party, they did not have the numbers to do anything at all to prevent the actions taken by the Bush administration and the RRM.

Like I've been saying, it's one thing if the Dems fell just short. By and large, they've gone along with Bush. Their votes prove my point.

What ever did happen to the leader of Al Qaeda? Unpunished and unrepentant... and still a threat to America, the last I heard. But it's all good, because we caught and executed Saddam... ::)

I'll not defend Bush in his handling of the job. Go ask one of the (few) GOP lackeys 'round here.

[W*GS]

I believe the source of the "press reports" was Ari Fleischer...

Actually, Gordon Johndroe - in all the research I've done, it comes back to him, with no corroboration by anyone else.

So... if the administration stonewalls a FOIA request, withholding the documentation, that's ample evidence for you that the evidence does not exist. Gotcha.

I'll await judgment, rather than pass it before all the facts are available.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What a crock. No one's buying it, W*GS.

Yes, you do give the GOP a total pass, deflecting all censure solely toward Dems.


:yep:

This thread is just one more example.

The topic is Bush's legacy.

Has W*GS even said one word on the thread topic?

Or has he simply turned it into another lengthy "look over there" (read: look at Clinton and/or the Democrats) deflection, as usual?

[baja]

Wags you can clear this up real easy just post your list of the bad things the repubs are responsible for.

[W*GS]

Which is to say that the forum's conservatives do need your help in piling on? (Just clarifying here)

How many non-lefties are there around here? Very few - and going by a weighted posting volume, the cacophony from the Left is almost deafening. When the conservatives (the few who haven't left) start being as prolific as the many lefties, we'll see.

Bad analogy... it's more like if another person (not either of the serial killers personally) said "That Jeffrey Dahmer was a sick SOB"... and you immediately deflected, saying "Well Ted Bundy was much, much worse". In that instance, yes, it would certainly appear that you were giving Dahmer a pass because Bundy was more heinous, thereby minimizing Dahmer's acts... unless you also specifically expressed disapproval of Dahmer's crimes.

An even better analogy:

Lefty: "Dahmer was a sick SOB, the most vile SOB to have ever lived".
Me: "Bundy was no better".
Lefty: "Quit deflecting from your hero Dahmer and onto my hero Bundy".
Me: "Neither one is my hero, bub, and Bundy and Dahmer were sick SOBs".
Lefty: "Keep covering for Dahmer".
Me: "Whatever..."

[Blueflame]

Actually, Gordon Johndroe - in all the research I've done, it comes back to him, with no corroboration by anyone else.
Oh, really?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011024-7.html



I'll await judgment, rather than pass it before all the facts are available.
Of course you will... it involves the GOP.

[W*GS]

Wags you can clear this up real easy just post your list of the bad things the repubs are responsible for.

1. The War in Iraq (duh, with the able assistance of the Democrats);
2. The botched job in Afghanistan (duh, with the Democrats being distracted by #1);
3. Bush's prescription drug program;
4. The ongoing War on (some) Drugs (again with the Dems right alongside);
5. The failure to deal with the immigration issue;
6. Failure to reform entitlements like SS and Medicare/Medicaid (as if the Dems would help wean those monstrosities);
7. Bush's failure to reform public education (the NCLB act is a joke, but the Dems aren't going to go against the teacher's unions and the educracy);
8. Bush's push to go back to the moon and on to Mars, creaming NASA's proven track record on real science;
9. The utter incompetence after Katrina, but LA Dems take some of the blame as well, and of course decades of ill-advised mucking with the Mississippi by the USACE;
10. The NSA wiretapping program, the corruption at many levels, the Libby commutation, the failure to push for free trade, and so on.

Satisfied?

Now show me a list of GOP views you think I support.

[Blueflame]

Thanks for proving my point.

Wrong. Apparently you only pay attention when I take Dems to task, and overlook it when I take the GOP to task. Given the ideological breakdown here (heavily lefty), that's not surprising.

Alleged quotes are one thing, actions are another. Bush has been plenty despicable - but so have past Presidents.

Like I've been saying, it's one thing if the Dems fell just short. By and large, they've gone along with Bush. Their votes prove my point.

I'll not defend Bush in his handling of the job. Go ask one of the (few) GOP lackeys 'round here.

Hmmm...looks to me like that's exactly what I did. :P

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wags you can clear this up real easy just post your list of the bad things the repubs are responsible for.

Exactly.

Give us the same number of words on Bush's legacy that you've given us here re: Clinton and/or the Dems.

[W*GS]

Oh, really?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011024-7.html

I read that over and didn't see what you want me to see. Can you provide a specific quote that supports your assertion?

Of course you will... it involves the GOP.

I'll see what Judicial Watch says. What's wrong with that?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush has been plenty despicable - but so have past Presidents.

But the topic of this thread isn't "past presidents" - it's "Bush's legacy."

Surely you can comprehend at least this much?

???

[Blueflame]

How many non-lefties are there around here? Very few - and going by a weighted posting volume, the cacophony from the Left is almost deafening. When the conservatives (the few who haven't left) start being as prolific as the many lefties, we'll see.
There are plenty of non-lefties around here... but for some strange reason, they haven't been posting as much lately. Perhaps because it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend the actions of Bushco.

An even better analogy:

Lefty: "Dahmer was a sick SOB, the most vile SOB to have ever lived".
Me: "Bundy was no better".
Lefty: "Quit deflecting from your hero Dahmer and onto my hero Bundy".
Me: "Neither one is my hero, bub, and Bundy and Dahmer were sick SOBs".
Lefty: "Keep covering for Dahmer".
Me: "Whatever..."
It's still a flawed analogy because both Dahmer and Bundy are dead; therefore mere fodder for history books.

More accurate would be to go with a (hypothetical) currently active serial killer that needs to be caught before he claims more victims vs. Bundy, who paid the penalty for his crimes years ago.

[baja]

Blueflame,"More accurate would be to go with a (hypothetical) currently active serial killer that needs to be caught before he claims more victims vs. Bundy, who paid the penalty for his crimes years ago.

And we have a winner folks...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How many non-lefties are there around here? Very few - and going by a weighted posting volume, the cacophony from the Left is almost deafening. When the conservatives (the few who haven't left) start being as prolific as the many lefties, we'll see.

:bs:

What a crock.

Your behavior and your tactics nowadays are no different than they were before the bush apologists and right-wingers started jumping off the bandwagon here.

[Blueflame]

I read that over and didn't see what you want me to see. Can you provide a specific quote that supports your assertion?
Haven't clicked on the "Listen to the Briefing" links (my speakers are turned off so that the sound doesn't interfere with the Arena Football playoff game and annoy my husband) but I'd start with #2 (HHS public health grant supplement *Purchase of Cipro from Bayer Corporation) and #10 (Who Gets Cipro?) At any rate, the link proves that Ari Fleischer talked about Cipro in the wake of the anthrax mailings.

I'll see what Judicial Watch says. What's wrong with that?
Nothing. You don't usually show such restraint when the individual involved is a Dem, though.

[Chupacabra]

how do you quote just a portion of someone's post?

[W*GS]

But the topic of this thread isn't "past presidents" - it's "Bush's legacy."

See post #3 on this thread:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1632696&postcount=3

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You don't usually show such restraint when the individual involved is a Dem, though.

:yep:

Who is he trying to kid here when he claims he has no anti-liberal bias?

His avatar tagline used to read "The Liberals' Worst Nightmare" or something to that effect.

[baja]

how do you quote just a portion of someone's post?

Cut and paste

[W*GS]

Haven't clicked on the "Listen to the Briefing" links (my speakers are turned off so that the sound doesn't interfere with the Arena Football playoff game and annoy my husband) but I'd start with #2 (HHS public health grant supplement *Purchase of Cipro from Bayer Corporation) and #10 (Who Gets Cipro?) At any rate, the link proves that Ari Fleischer talked about Cipro in the wake of the anthrax mailings.

I read the transcript - and it doesn't support your assertion regarding the WH staff taking Cipro before the anthrax attacks.

Nothing. You don't usually show such restraint when the individual involved is a Dem, though.

Whatever...

[W*GS]

Who is he trying to kid here when he claims he has no anti-liberal bias?

His avatar tagline used to read "The Liberals' Worst Nightmare" or something to that effect.

Anti-lefty (using "liberal" to describe your ideology is a bad joke) does not mean pro-right. I've explained that to you about, oh, a million times, and you still don't get it.

[W*GS]

There are plenty of non-lefties around here... but for some strange reason, they haven't been posting as much lately. Perhaps because it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend the actions of Bushco.

Of course it is - on the other hand, many could have left because they have less tolerance for the crap they have to suffer at the hands of the vitriolic Lefties...

More accurate would be to go with a (hypothetical) currently active serial killer that needs to be caught before he claims more victims vs. Bundy, who paid the penalty for his crimes years ago.

You're right - on the other hand, pointing out that both past serial killers and current serial killers are scum doesn't mean worshipping one particular one over the other, or that the current serial killer is new and unique and more heinous.

Bush is a scumbag - and so was Clinton. If you can't agree to both of those statements, you've got some mighty rosy glasses on when you back over your shoulder...

[Blueflame]

Of course it is - on the other hand, many could have left because they have less tolerance for the crap they have to suffer at the hands of the vitriolic Lefties...
Give me a break... it was the "lefties" who were in the minority here... and having to suffer a lot of "crap" from conservative posters not that long ago. What goes around comes around, y'know...

You're right - on the other hand, pointing out that both past serial killers and current serial killers are scum doesn't mean worshipping one particular one over the other, or that the current serial killer is new and unique and more heinous.
Nonetheless, the already-executed serial killer no longer poses a threat to society in general; the current one does... and needs to be captured and prevented from taking more lives.

Bush is a scumbag - and so was Clinton. If you can't agree to both of those statements, you've got some mighty rosy glasses on when you back over your shoulder...
They're both politicians who look out for their own best interests. However, the country was in much better shape when Clinton left office than it will be when Bush does.

As to the White House being given Cipro:

Excerpt:
"At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago. White House officials won't discuss that, or who might be receiving the anthrax-treating antibiotic now.

``If the White House were to start to reveal the security measures including health protections that are in place for the president ... people who would want to do harm to the president would know what protections are in place and therefore they could shift their tactics,'' Fleischer said.

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was a precaution, according to one person directly involved."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/prior_knowledge_of_anthrax_threat.html

A prognostication now, if you will: W*GS will malign the source as "left-leaning"....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Of course it is - on the other hand, many could have left because they have less tolerance for the crap they have to suffer at the hands of the vitriolic Lefties..

Hilarious!

Poor little righties - they've been victimized so horribly by the big, powerful, blue meanies.

Maybe you need to go back and read some threads from the days before Bush's approval ratings tanked.

Your right-wing pals wrote the book on "vitriol," dude.

[W*GS]

Give me a break... it was the "lefties" who were in the minority here... and having to suffer a lot of "crap" from conservative posters not that long ago. What goes around comes around, y'know...

In other words, when you and your lefty pals have the upper hand, you're not above the cheap shots, smears and slurs either.

Nonetheless, the already-executed serial killer no longer poses a threat to society in general; the current one does... and needs to be captured and prevented from taking more lives.

Unfortunately, the lingering odors of the Clinton era are still permeating the air...

They're both politicians who look out for their own best interests. However, the country was in much better shape when Clinton left office than it will be when Bush does.

As if when Clinton left, things were hunky-dory... I suppose to some people, a 10-ton load of crap is worse than a 1-ton load of crap, but to others, it's still crap.

On the night of the Sept. 11 attacks, the White House Medical Office dispensed Cipro to staff accompanying Vice President Dick Cheney as he was secreted off to the safety of Camp David, and told them it was a precaution, according to one person directly involved."[/i]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/prior_knowledge_of_anthrax_threat.html

A prognostication now, if you will: W*GS will malign the source as "left-leaning"....

There is that, but the story isn't corroborated - in fact, that's the only mention of it - I ran into it multiple times, but didn't find any other evidence.

[Blueflame]

In other words, when you and your lefty pals have the upper hand, you're not above the cheap shots, smears and slurs either.
Show me these "cheap shots, smears and slurs", please.

Unfortunately, the lingering odors of the Clinton era are still permeating the air...
So as long as the public "remembers" the actions of an executed serial killer, he remains as much of a priority/threat as a currently active one? I don't think so. I think his relevance ends when he is no longer free to re-offend... and it definitely ends once he stops breathing.

As if when Clinton left, things were hunky-dory... I suppose to some people, a 10-ton load of crap is worse than a 1-ton load of crap, but to others, it's still crap.
No one said things were hunky-dory... I said the country was in better shape when Clinton left office than it will be (at war; 3000+ American dead) when Bush leaves office. And I stand by that statement.

There is that, but the story isn't corroborated - in fact, that's the only mention of it - I ran into it multiple times, but didn't find any other evidence.
So as long as Bushco refuses to give up the requested FOIA documents (that presumably would prove it), it remains "uncorroborated" from your perspective. Cover up, stonewall, delay, obfuscate, deflect, rinse, repeat works for you, eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, when you and your lefty pals have the upper hand, you're not above the cheap shots, smears and slurs either.

Ha ha ha! Hilarious!

This from the guy who would probably take the blue ribbon for the 'most vitriolic comments' ever posted on the Orange Mane?

That's hilarious.

:D

P.S. Don't make me post them.

[W*GS]

Show me these "cheap shots, smears and slurs", please.

About 99% of LABF's posts; many of Spider's; most of Rigs11's; more than a few of TailgateNuts... The most voluminous lefties are the most nasty, generally.

So as long as the public "remembers" the actions of an executed serial killer, he remains as much of a priority/threat as a currently active one? I don't think so. I think his relevance ends when he is no longer free to re-offend... and it definitely ends once he stops breathing.

Since Clinton isn't dead, yes, the things he did (and didn't do) are affecting us today.

No one said things were hunky-dory... I said the country was in better shape when Clinton left office than it will be (at war; 3000+ American dead) when Bush leaves office. And I stand by that statement.

The US was at war when Clinton left office; unfortunately for him, our enemies can't be defeated by a blizzard of memos and endless meetings.

So as long as Bushco refuses to give up the requested FOIA documents (that presumably would prove it), it remains "uncorroborated" from your perspective. Cover up, stonewall, delay, obfuscate, deflect, rinse, repeat works for you, eh?

There's only one single news report, edited at that, about the WH staff taking Cipro starting on 9/11. If you can, find another.

[W*GS]

Ha ha ha! Hilarious!

This from the guy who would probably take the blue ribbon for the 'most vitriolic comments' ever posted on the Orange Mane?

That's hilarious.

:D

P.S. Don't make me post them.

This from the guy who said that Tim McVeigh and I had a lot in common, insists that I have "arrested moral development", and more than once called me a psychopath.

You've even laid into people who had no history here, because they didn't automatically share your seething hatred of Bush. Your M.O. is personal attack, and little else. You're one of the most hateful personalities on the 'Net I've ever met, and I've met lots.

[Blueflame]

About 99% of LABF's posts; many of Spider's; most of Rigs11's; more than a few of TailgateNuts... The most voluminous lefties are the most nasty, generally.
"Lefties" don't have a corner on that, W*GS... and people in general tend to give back the same kind of communication they get. If I noticed a trend of other posters being unusually hostile to me, I think I just might take an introspective glance into the tone of my own posts..

Since Clinton isn't dead, yes, the things he did (and didn't do) are affecting us today.
Hey, it wasn't me who wanted to go with a flawed "serial killer" analogy. No, Clinton isn't dead, but he is out of office and with the "other side of the aisle" having a virtual stranglehold on all 3 branches of government for more than 6 years, if they didn't like those policies he implemented, they easily could have changed them. They didn't.

The US was at war when Clinton left office; unfortunately for him, our enemies can't be defeated by a blizzard of memos and endless meetings.
I'm assuming you're referring to the attack on the USS Cole... it's also worth noting that our enemies can't be defeated when a president who tries to do something is accused of "wagging the dog" to take attention off a lurid sex scandal.

There's only one single news report, edited at that, about the WH staff taking Cipro starting on 9/11. If you can, find another.
I provided two links to the Washington Post... two to Judicial Watch...one to Whitehouse.org...and one to prisonplanet and you need more than that? LOL

[W*GS]

"Lefties" don't have a corner on that, W*GS...

I didn't say they did.

and people in general tend to give back the same kind of communication they get. If I noticed a trend of other posters being unusually hostile to me, I think I just might take an introspective glance into the tone of my own posts.

Whereas some folks just take cheap shots regardless of the tone of the post they're responding to.

Hey, it wasn't me who wanted to go with a flawed "serial killer" analogy. No, Clinton isn't dead, but he is out of office and with the "other side of the aisle" having a virtual stranglehold on all 3 branches of government for more than 6 years, if they didn't like those policies he implemented, they easily could have changed them. They didn't.

As if the GOP is interested in protecting our rights... If you want change, you don't vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. They are far more alike than different - both use the State to impose their ideology on all of us, and use any excuse necessary to increase their power at the expense of our rights. Like I said waaaaay back, Bush has merely taken the State left him by his predecessors and used it for his own (disgusting) purposes.

I'm assuming you're referring to the attack on the USS Cole... it's also worth noting that our enemies can't be defeated when a president who tries to do something is accused of "wagging the dog" to take attention off a lurid sex scandal.

Not just the attack on the Cole - the prior al-Qaeda attacks as well. As for the "wagging the dog" nonsense, that was a failure of the Clinton team to let the GOP know what they were doing and sell it. As it was, it was a weak response, as we now know. Clinton was the one responsible for putting himself in the position of having his personal life used against him politically, and for as astute a politician as he is, that he was so stupid (or arrogant?) to believe that he could get away with his "activities" is puzzling. I don't doubt more than a few ardent Dems agree - why he wasted his political capital so idiotically.

I provided two links to the Washington Post... two to Judicial Watch...one to Whitehouse.org...and one to prisonplanet and you need more than that? LOL

They all point to the same single uncorroborated story.

[Spider]

About 99% of LABF's posts; many of Spider's; most of Rigs11's; more than a few of TailgateNuts... The most voluminous lefties are the most nasty, generally.




Need Tissue ?

[Blueflame]

I didn't say they did.
Whereas some folks just take cheap shots regardless of the tone of the post they're responding to.
Um... your post did state that "vitriolic lefties" were forcing conservatives to have to "suffer a lot of crap"... which would suggest that you viewed the interaction as one-sided. "Vitriolic crap-spewers" vs. poor oppressed innocents might not have been stated per se, but it certainly was inferred.

As if the GOP is interested in protecting our rights... If you want change, you don't vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. They are far more alike than different - both use the State to impose their ideology on all of us, and use any excuse necessary to increase their power at the expense of our rights. Like I said waaaaay back, Bush has merely taken the State left him by his predecessors and used it for his own (disgusting) purposes.
Show me a third-party candidate who has the slightest chance of winning an election at the national level and I'd consider voting for him/her. But they're few and far between, so we're left choosing between the "lesser of two evils".

Not just the attack on the Cole - the prior al-Qaeda attacks as well. As for the "wagging the dog" nonsense, that was a failure of the Clinton team to let the GOP know what they were doing and sell it. As it was, it was a weak response, as we now know. Clinton was the one responsible for putting himself in the position of having his personal life used against him politically, and for as astute a politician as he is, that he was so stupid (or arrogant?) to believe that he could get away with his "activities" is puzzling. I don't doubt more than a few ardent Dems agree - why he wasted his political capital so idiotically.
The Republicans knew what Clinton was trying to do... they didn't care because they were carrying on their partisan witch hunt regardless. And yes, Clinton should have remained faithful to his wife.

They all point to the same single uncorroborated story.
A story that will remain uncorroborated as long as the Bush administration withholds the documents requested in Judicial Watch's FOIA filing. It doesn't mean the story isn't true....and if it wasn't true, why did the Washington Post print it? Logic says they wouldn't withhold documents if they had nothing to hide.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And yes, Clinton should have remained faithful to his wife.
Why?

[W*GS]

Why?

Because a President unfaithful to his wife hasn't the integrity to be President. Would you ever really trust someone who cheated on their spouse?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Because a President unfaithful to his wife hasn't the integrity to be President. Would you ever really trust someone who cheated on their spouse?You mean he might start a war or something if he cheated on his wife?

[SoCalBronco]

Why?

Because it would be violating the vow (either literally or in spirit) that a spouse takes in marraige and the trust that the other person places in you.

[Blueflame]

Why?

Because he had made that promise to her. If he wasn't going to honor the marriage vows, he should have filed for divorce. But his infidelity... particularly when the lurid details became common knowledge thanks to the Starr Report... was hugely embarrassing, not just for him, but for his wife and daughter. To be sure, it was no one else's business but his and his family's (and Monica's), but his unfaithfulness did affect the performance of his job and made him a less-effective president.

[Blueflame]

Because a President unfaithful to his wife hasn't the integrity to be President. Would you ever really trust someone who cheated on their spouse?

A lot of prominent politicians have been unfaithful to their spouses...presidents, Congressmen, Senators, judges... you name it.

[W*GS]

Um... your post did state that "vitriolic lefties" were forcing conservatives to have to "suffer a lot of crap"... which would suggest that you viewed the interaction as one-sided. "Vitriolic crap-spewers" vs. poor oppressed innocents might not have been stated per se, but it certainly was inferred.

No-one is forcing anything on anyone here. However, when the rhetoric gets as heated as it does, and some individuals do very little more than level personal attacks at everyone who disagrees with them, the value of the place goes down. Am I innocent? No - but I'm nowhere near as guilty as some. You know who they are, too.

Show me a third-party candidate who has the slightest chance of winning an election at the national level and I'd consider voting for him/her. But they're few and far between, so we're left choosing between the "lesser of two evils".

More like the evil of two lessers. There's a whole slew of literature as to why the Democrats and the GOP have political power pretty much sewn up in this country - suffice to say the dolts and scum we're given a "choice" at election time is exactly the way both parties want it. Abominations like McCain-Feingold are the purest expressions of the megalomania and contempt for us that both parties have.

The Republicans knew what Clinton was trying to do... they didn't care because they were carrying on their partisan witch hunt regardless. And yes, Clinton should have remained faithful to his wife.

Clinton dug his own hole - no-one forced him to do the stupid things he did. That his enemies took advantage is how politics at the national level is played - and like I said, he was either incredibly stupid or arrogant to believe that he was immune.

A story that will remain uncorroborated as long as the Bush administration withholds the documents requested in Judicial Watch's FOIA filing. It doesn't mean the story isn't true....and if it wasn't true, why did the Washington Post print it? Logic says they wouldn't withhold documents if they had nothing to hide.

You really think the media prints the truth? Puhleeze.

There's a single source for the story - no others. If you can find something more, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Because he had made that promise to her. If he wasn't going to honor the marriage vows, he should have filed for divorce. But his infidelity... particularly when the lurid details became common knowledge thanks to the Starr Report... was hugely embarrassing, not just for him, but for his wife and daughter. To be sure, it was no one else's business but his and his family's (and Monica's), but his unfaithfulness did affect the performance of his job and made him a less-effective president.Nah, the only thing that happened that affected his presidency is he got caught. Less than 50% of all Americans ever carry out their marriage vows. I'm more concerned about the Americans who profess faith and marriage and invade sovereign countries.

[SoCalBronco]

You mean he might start a war or something if he cheated on his wife?

Well there is some historical credence to the view that infidelity can lead to serious problems/abuses in the Presidency, I would reference acting president Kennedy's recklessness with various women tied to Soviet Bloc spy agencies, california defense contract firms that the acting president allegedly took kickbacks from, and ofcourse women tied to the mafia, I trust there needs to be little discussion of why that is a problem as it relates to the actual office itself in terms of national security, conflict of interest and in other aspects. However, as to President Clinton, I think there would be a much stronger argument that there would be insufficient nexus between his sexual activities and its effect on the office of the Presidency, although Blue has correctly noted that the entire controversy weakened the office generally by taking up time that could have otherwise been used more efficiently but for the conduct and W*GS argument about the erosion of moral authority is also an interesting one.

It doesnt really matter though, because when you replied "Why" to the question of why infidelity is wrong, the question was not in respect to the office, but was rather in the abstract.

[Blueflame]

No-one is forcing anything on anyone here. However, when the rhetoric gets as heated as it does, and some individuals do very little more than level personal attacks at everyone who disagrees with them, the value of the place goes down. Am I innocent? No - but I'm nowhere near as guilty as some. You know who they are, too.
One loses credibility re: complaints about personal attacks if one has ever launched them, too.
Yes, I know that political rhetoric is bipartisan.

More like the evil of two lessers. There's a whole slew of literature as to why the Democrats and the GOP have political power pretty much sewn up in this country - suffice to say the dolts and scum we're given a "choice" at election time is exactly the way both parties want it. Abominations like McCain-Feingold are the purest expressions of the megalomania and contempt for us that both parties have.
Voting for a third-party candidate... even one with good name recognition like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader... is tantamount to throwing away one's vote. The election was going to either the Democrat or the Republican; not a third-party guy. Ideal? No... but realistic.

Clinton dug his own hole - no-one forced him to do the stupid things he did. That his enemies took advantage is how politics at the national level is played - and like I said, he was either incredibly stupid or arrogant to believe that he was immune.
Again, he should have remained faithful to his wife. But a lot of Republicans helped with the digging. Richard Mellon Scaife comes to mind as an example.

You really think the media prints the truth? Puhleeze.
I think that a major newspaper article is generally viewed as a valid source for the purposes of discussions on an internet messageboard.

There's a single source for the story - no others. If you can find something more, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Sure... I could look for a seventh link for you... but I suspect you'd dismiss that one, too, so why waste my time? Your mind appears made up, with the opinion engraved in granite already.

[W*GS]

You mean he might start a war or something if he cheated on his wife?

Perhaps - but breaking a marriage vow indicates basic untrustworthiness.

It's clear that both Clintons view marriage as a mere means to an end, and nothing more.

[Blueflame]

Nah, the only thing that happened that affected his presidency is he got caught. Less than 50% of all Americans ever carry out their marriage vows. I'm more concerned about the Americans who profess faith and marriage and invade sovereign countries.

Yet, his behavior did cause distress to his wife and daughter and any husband/father should try to avoid that. :)

Yes, I'm also very concerned with "Christians" who appear to be bent on starting the Apocalypse.

[Blueflame]

Perhaps - but breaking a marriage vow indicates basic untrustworthiness.

It's clear that both Clintons view marriage as a mere means to an end, and nothing more.

Please provide proof that Hillary does not value her marriage vows.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well there is some historical credence to the view that infidelity can lead to serious problems/abuses in the Presidency, I would reference acting president Kennedy's recklessness with various women tied to Soviet Bloc spy agencies, california defense contract firms that the acting president allegedly took kickbacks from, and ofcourse women tied to the mafia, I trust there needs to be little discussion of why that is a problem as it relates to the actual office itself in terms of national security, conflict of interest and in other aspects. However, as to President Clinton, I think there would be a much stronger argument that there would be insufficient nexus between his sexual activities and its effect on the office of the Presidency, although Blue has correctly noted that the entire controversy weakened the office generally by taking up time that could have otherwise been used more efficiently but for the conduct and W*GS argument about the erosion of moral authority is also an interesting one.

It doesnt really matter though, because when you replied "Why" to the question of why infidelity is wrong, the question was not in respect to the office, but was rather in the abstract.Hence my point of "getting caught". If he isn't caught then so what?

Bush, to your knowledge, hasn't been getting oral sex from Condi Rice or anyone else but did that (upholding a perceived moral standard) prevent him invading and occupying a sovereign country.... no. I would also point out the the office of the presidency under Bush has become the most secretive and "back roomed" presidency in modern history if not all of history. All this under the "moral guidelines of Republicans".

[W*GS]

Nah, the only thing that happened that affected his presidency is he got caught. Less than 50% of all Americans ever carry out their marriage vows.

And that makes it OK, in your opinion?

[W*GS]

Please provide proof that Hillary does not value her marriage vows.

Her drive for political power is more important to her than the crap Bill dumps on her with every "bimbo explosion". She knows that had she divorced him when she threatened to, his political career (and thus hers) would be damaged. Would you stick with a husband who treated you as shabbily as Bill treats Hillary?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by W*GS
About 99% of LABF's posts; many of Spider's; most of Rigs11's; more than a few of TailgateNuts... The most voluminous lefties are the most nasty, generally.



Cry me a damn river. Where the hell did honest debate get us. It got us in the mess we are currently in, because the Repukes decided to Swift boat the process and steal the election.
**** debate. I've had your dumb ass on ignore because your SOP is to deflect any valid attack of this administration and at the same time you attempt to convince others that you are not a Bush apologist. You are so full of ****, I would recommend you call a septic service immediately. Maybe, once the fecal matter is removed from your cornea, you might be able to see clearly!

If you don't like my posts, IGNORE ME! I wont go away, but you might not get your little feelings hurt any more.

If Bush hadn't screwed the pooch, maybe people wouldn't be so damned pissed off about him and his cadre of sheep!

[Blueflame]

Her drive for political power is more important to her than the crap Bill dumps on her with every "bimbo explosion". She knows that had she divorced him when she threatened to, his political career (and thus hers) would be damaged. Would you stick with a husband who treated you as shabbily as Bill treats Hillary?

OK, so she's ambitious and values her career, too. It still doesn't prove that she does not honor her marriage vows.... unless you have concrete proof that she has committed adultery or something.

No, I would not have married a politician in the first place. They tell lies, y'know. :P

[SoCalBronco]

Hence my point of "getting caught". If he isn't caught then so what?

Bush, to your knowledge, hasn't been getting oral sex from Condi Rice or anyone else but did that (upholding a perceived moral standard) prevent him invading and occupying a sovereign country.... no. I would also point out the the office of the presidency under Bush has become the most secretive and "back roomed" presidency in modern history if not all of history. All this under the "moral guidelines of Republicans".

We are approaching this from different angles......you are saying: Guys, you are complaining about a loss of moral authority/standard here, you dont have to be cheating on your wife to basically lose your moral standards in office and Pres. Bush is the example....I don't think anyone is saying that it if you do not do X, then you cannot have Y......what people are saying is that X is not helpful (and depending on the circumstances, as I illustrated with the example of Kennedy, it can be alot worse than "not helpful", X can have a very bad effect on Y). X and Y being ofcourse, some kind of infidelity and the nexus to good/bad conduct as it relates to the execution of the office, respectively.

Again though, when the question was posed on this thread and when you answered it, it wasnt phrased in that manner, it was "Bill shouldnt cheat on Hillary". Would you agree that in the abstract, that is morally wrong and that should Pres Clinton, or anyone not want to be with anyone anymore (be it that they are not turned on by them or for whatever reason), the proper course is divorce, not cheating?

[W*GS]

Re: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1640506&postcount=204

Thanks for proving my point, TailgateNut.

[W*GS]

OK, so she's ambitious and values her career, too. It still doesn't prove that she does not honor her marriage vows.... unless you have concrete proof that she has committed adultery or something.

No, I don't think Hillary is a lesbian or something. But it's rather obvious that Bill and Hillary have an "agreement", and their marriage vows are just a "goddamned piece of paper".

It's strange to me that anyone believes an adulterer - I'm reminded of those fairly frequent letters to "Dear Abby"-type advice columns from the Other Woman...

No, I would not have married a politician in the first place. They tell lies, y'know. :P

Of course.

[Blueflame]

No, I don't think Hillary is a lesbian or something. But it's rather obvious that Bill and Hillary have an "agreement", and their marriage vows are just a "goddamned piece of paper".

It's strange to me that anyone believes an adulterer - I'm reminded of those fairly frequent letters to "Dear Abby"-type advice columns from the Other Woman...
Of course.
I don't think any of us here on the Mane is in a close enough position to the Clintons to even venture a guess as to the closeness (or lack thereof) of their personal, private relationship. We do know that one of the partners engaged in an extramarital liaison... and no doubt they went through a tough time then, yet did not separate, hence their marriage may actually be stronger for having been tested... one never knows.

However this is a very good example of your willingness to make a presumption of guilt (in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of any straying by Hillary) when a Dem is concerned. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I know it shouldn't surprise me anymore, but I still can't help but marvel at the fact that the Bush apologists and right-wingers can't discuss Bush's legacy without changing the subject to Clinton's legacy in very short order.

I guess it's because they know Bush's legacy isn't a pretty picture and they'd be hard pressed to make it one.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

We are approaching this from different angles......you are saying: Guys, you are complaining about a loss of moral authority/standard here, you dont have to be cheating on your wife to basically lose your moral standards in office and Pres. Bush is the example....I don't think anyone is saying that it if you do not do X, then you cannot have Y......what people are saying is that X is not helpful (and depending on the circumstances, as I illustrated with the example of Kennedy, it can be alot worse than "not helpful", X can have a very bad effect on Y). X and Y being ofcourse, some kind of infidelity and the nexus to good/bad conduct as it relates to the execution of the office, respectively.

Again though, when the question was posed on this thread and when you answered it, it wasnt phrased in that manner, it was "Bill shouldnt cheat on Hillary". Would you agree that in the abstract, that is morally wrong and that should Pres Clinton, or anyone not want to be with anyone anymore (be it that they are not turned on by them or for whatever reason), the proper course is divorce, not cheating?Morally wrong? Well, I guess you have to define morality to know and be the judge of that. And why does someone have to get divorced if they have oral (or any other sex)? Many people continue their marriage after infidelity.

Getting caught and lying about it was his problem which may or may not of translated to other problems in executing his duties as president.

Maybe in the future can find a hermaphrodite be president and not have to worry about them needing to get laid.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Getting caught and lying about it was his problem which may or may not of translated to other problems in executing his duties as president.


Bingo.

If I'm about to board a flight from LAX to JFK, I just want to feel secure in the knowledge that the pilot can fly the damn plane. Who the pilot is sleeping with is irrelevant.