[Eightball]

I'll admit Bush sucks - but mostly because he's not conservative.

Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them.  Democrats included.

[Kazan]

I'll admit Bush sucks - but mostly because he's not conservative.

I'll agree that he's not a conservative, but that isn't why he sucks - conservatism aka "me me me me me me" sucks too

Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them.  Democrats included.

um... nooooo

they did that vote based upon the incomplete intelligence reports bush showed them, without telling them they were incomplete

you cannot blame someone for a bad decision based upon bad information if they didn't know, and had no way of knowing, the information was bad

bush knew the information was bad because he had the other half of the reports that stated the claims were not credible and why.

[Nuclear1]

Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them.  Democrats included.

True. Kazan, if the same information from the CIA was available that you say was, then why did many Democrats in Congress vote to authorize the attack?

On Clinton, the reason that he was impeached was because he actually did break the law: he lied to a Grand Jury under oath. Now, had he simply admitted that he had gotten action in the Oval Office, then he would have been off without a problem.

You know, Bush isn't the only president to have carried out searches without warrants. Try Clinton and Aldrich Ames, for instance. No warrant issued there, but the man was found guilty of treason and leaking classified information to the USSR. What's the difference between Clinton breaking the law to search the home of a suspected CIA mole and Bush doing the same to monitor phone conversations of suspected terrorists?

[Kazan]

Re "he lied about wmd" - then so did Congress - they authorized the war and had the same info available to them.  Democrats included.

True. Kazan, if the same information from the CIA was available that you say was, then why did many Democrats in Congress vote to authorize the attack?

I already covered this - it's a matter of record: the CIA gave bush the intelligence, bush then turned around and gave congress HALF of it - only the half that supported his position, not the half that called it into doubt

On Clinton, the reason that he was impeached was because he actually did break the law: he lied to a Grand Jury under oath. Now, had he simply admitted that he had gotten action in the Oval Office, then he would have been off without a problem.

um the only incident I can thing of that you can claim he lied was when he said he didn't have sexual relations - the problem is he didn't commit perjury there, in court they defined sexual relations in a fashion in which he would have been committing perjury if he said YES

You know, Bush isn't the only president to have carried out searches without warrants. Try Clinton and Aldrich Ames, for instance.

Clinton? horse**** - he got his FISA

the Aldrich Ames talking point is debunked on the first page of google http://www.brainshrub.com/aldrich-ames-case

No warrant issued there, but the man was found guilty of treason and leaking classified information to the USSR. What's the difference between Clinton breaking the law to search the home of a suspected CIA mole and Bush doing the same to monitor phone conversations of suspected terrorists?

No the difference is: Clinton got his FISA warrants - Clinton performed NO Warrantless wiretaps

[Deepblue]

Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.

[Kosh]

True. Kazan, if the same information from the CIA was available that you say was, then why did many Democrats in Congress vote to authorize the attack?

Because at the time it was political suicide not to vote for it. Max Cleland (or however his name was spelled) was a war hero in Vietnam. He lost both his legs and one arm saving his men from an enemy grenade. He later became a democratic senator from Georgia. He voted no for the Iraq war. Because of that, in the next election his republican opponent called him a coward (even though this republican had never served a day in the military, much less in a warzone). This sinlge remark was enough to swing the election and Max lost. Just because he voted no on Iraq.

[Kazan]

i guess the facts are democrat fanbois too

---

as for authorization of force

they didn't vote "for" the iraq war-  if you look at the notes, context, comments, etc of the vote they were voting for the authorization of force so that it was on the table when bush went to the table of diplomacy and they expected him to go for a diplomatic solution first and force only as a last resort

he jumped straight to force once he had the authorization

[Turambar]

Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.

of course our friend representing the corporations would align himself with the repubs,  they let his buddies run free and exploit whoever they want.

[Eightball]

You are very sure of yourself Kazan.  Are you sure you weren't there or something?  Throw us at least a dubious link, please!

i guess the facts are democrat fanbois too

A master debator at work. 

as for authorization of force

they didn't vote "for" the iraq war-  if you look at the notes, context, comments, etc of the vote they were voting for the authorization of force so that it was on the table when bush went to the table of diplomacy and they expected him to go for a diplomatic solution first and force only as a last resort

he jumped straight to force once he had the authorization

When you put force on the table, there is the chance that it will be used.  According to some, Bush rused into Afgahnistan - shouldn't our good Congress have suspected that Bush would rush into Iraq?

Because at the time it was political suicide not to vote for it. Max Cleland (or however his name was spelled) was a war hero in Vietnam. He lost both his legs and one arm saving his men from an enemy grenade. He later became a democratic senator from Georgia. He voted no for the Iraq war. Because of that, in the next election his republican opponent called him a coward (even though this republican had never served a day in the military, much less in a warzone). This sinlge remark was enough to swing the election and Max lost. Just because he voted no on Iraq.

How very noble and principled of the Democrats, then.  These are the saviors of our race?
And wouldn't this logic apply to the Republicans as well?  Aren't elected officials supposed to represent their constituents?  If something is "political suicide" then that means the public is against it.  Shouldn't they follow the will of the people, at least to some degree?

Clinton lied to the American public.  He said himself when he was an Arkansas governor and Nixon was president, that if a President of the US ever lies to the American people, he should resign.  But enough about Clinton.  We're here about Bush.

I'll agree that he's not a conservative, but that isn't why he sucks - conservatism aka "me me me me me me" sucks too

Wow.  That's the core of conservatism right there.    You got it.  And liberalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

Happy 4/20, everybody! 

[Flipside]

Well, that's the backbone of politics, though. Not to carry out the will of the people, but to convince the people the what you is what they want too. This is why I've always felt there should be some kind of legal obligation for Politicians to at least attempt to meet their campaign promises.

[Deepblue]

Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.

of course our friend representing the corporations would align himself with the repubs, they let his buddies run free and exploit whoever they want.

Tasteless right? Well so is your comment.

[vyper]

This is why I love you Deepblue, you're as petty as your opponents. Fun to watch too.

[WMCoolmon]

  @ this thread.

[NGTM-1R]

Geez Kazan, you sound like a Democrat fanboy.

The correct term is, I think, "water-bailer".

[Ford Prefect]

Tasteless right? Well so is your comment.

Nah, that's not tasteless, just ineffective. "Tasteless" is laughing during Saving Private Ryan. Not that this particular example comes to mind because I've done it or anything, 'cause I totally haven't....

[BlackDove]

We beLIEve you.

[Kazan]

I don't know who claims he rushed into afghanistan - we had clear intelligence coroborated by all our allies, and they were lining up to assist us

now actual management of the war in afghanistan was completely and totally incompetant to the point of letting a primary target escape, allowing the drug industry to boom, and generally not increasing the stability of the region

That's the core of conservatism right there.    You got it.  And liberalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

yes, that is conservatism right there, and liberalism IS the best thing since sliced bread

you can thank liberalism for the existance of the United States of America and those precious rights that you claim to have, yet freely support the curtailing of in the name of the illusion of security.


Conservatism historically and today has always been more worried about numeral uno and less concerned about anyone else to the point of not seeing when giving of oneself will reap a greater reward than keeping to oneself - ESPECIALLY when it comes to money.



n1ghtmare - troll on!

[Deepblue]

Question Kazan:

Revolutionary War or War for Independence?

[Kazan]

what the hell difference is it suppose to make

[Deepblue]

It's a way of determining how someone thinks and/or has been taught history.