[Nuclear1]

Don't go there with the assumptions.  Clinton lied in front of a Grand Jury, and the Bush Administration has committed some shady acts as well.  They're both criminal acts.

Which surely was the entire point I was making.

Then what point were you making?  Were you automatically labeling DS9er as a hypocrite then? 

Because that is a much better point indeed.

[DeepSpace9er]

Labling me a hypocrite and you have no idea what i think about Clintons problems. Considering i was still in grade school when Monica was in the oval office closet, i didnt see what happened first hand and what i do know about it ive read in books written not too long ago. To me, anyway, what is not important is getting away with lying and dodging impeachment was not the big issue. The big issue is the permanent tarnishing of the office of the presidency which was brought down to a college dorm level with the sexcapades with interns. However bad you think George W Bush made the country look in the world, which is just a bunch of socialist second rates pissed off they arent top dog, Bill Clinton was far more damaging to the image with his whole scandal.

I know you guys love to throw things like "Bush is fighting an illegal war" but really, how is it illegal? By the International basketball court? He had authorization by an act of Congress to wage the war how he wanted so its not illegal under our judicial system. The UN had passed resolution after resolution with 'consequences' if Saddam didnt disarm yet he fliped off the UN.

[Mr. Vega]

There are 500,000 Iraqis dead, at least 100,000 due directly to US bombing during the initial invasion, nearly all of whom are civilians (who knows how many of the remainder have been killed in sectarian violence and how many were killed by american mortar fire- it wasn't the insurgents that caused the mass exodus of the Fallujans during the seige, I can tell you that). It's not illegal in the most technical terms, but the motives behind the invasion were undoubtedly aggressive, which tends to be frowned upon.

[Ace]

Bill Clinton was far more damaging to the image with his whole scandal.

Considering that each and every person outside of the US I've met has a negative opinion of Bush but not so much of Clinton's "sex-capades" (with responses of "it's none of our business" "all politicians do that... oh well" etc.) you're coming from a very odd perspective.

So maybe you personally became more disillusioned by Clinton than Bush, and many conservatives used it as a general way of attacking him, but globally that isn't the case.

Similarly screaming that other countries only disapprove of US actions due to "them being 2nd rate socialists" is hubris to the extreme. Just as you held Clinton to a higher standard, those with power are expected to not act half-cocked and start unjustified wars. Does anyone complain about Afghanistan? No, other than it's being mismanaged due to another war... a frivilous war.

[Mefustae]

Actually, it is illegal in terms of the UN. IIRC There are specific rules and laws prohibiting a large power or superpower such as the US invading a smaller power ie Iraq. Hell, it was one of the founding ideals of the United Nations! By international law it can indeed be considered an illegal war, but nobody is really in a position to say or do anything about it.

[aldo_14]

I know you guys love to throw things like "Bush is fighting an illegal war" but really, how is it illegal? By the International basketball court? He had authorization by an act of Congress to wage the war how he wanted so its not illegal under our judicial system. The UN had passed resolution after resolution with 'consequences' if Saddam didnt disarm yet he fliped off the UN.

""Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Kofi Annan - UN Secretary General.

The US is a signatory of the UN Charter.  Even if they tend to try and extort the organisation by refusing to pay dues until it does XX and YY.

[Nix]

& the UN is about flippy-floppy like most liberals are, hypocritical and corrupt.  At least the republicans are consistent with ****ing up.  Democrats say one thing, do a completely different thing, are all over the place on their issues.  They'll be the ones to REALLY **** on their fellow Americans.  Just give it time.  It'll fall apart just like Rome soon, perhaps in our lifetime. 

And really, how many people who sit and ***** about this stuff are actually involved in doing something about it.  If you are, kudos, but if you aren't, why don't you go do something about it instead of coming here, and bashing people not belonging to your specific political group.  Then again, I guess people need entertainment in some way

[Nuclear1]

& the UN is about flippy-floppy like most liberals are, hypocritical and corrupt.  At least the republicans are consistent with ****ing up.  Democrats say one thing, do a completely different thing, are all over the place on their issues.  They'll be the ones to REALLY **** on their fellow Americans.  Just give it time.  It'll fall apart just like Rome soon, perhaps in our lifetime. 

I wouldn't say they'd necessarily be the doom of the nation, but they aren't exactly on track with what their constituents wanted during the election; sure, they got the 100 Hours legislation through, but ever since, I haven't seen one ounce of bipartisanship from the Democrats.  Also, putting polarizing and far-left figures such as Pelosi as leaders in Congress doesn't do much for having a moderate and centrist Congress that would allow for better cooperation.

Republicans tend to be just as bad, but at least their Presidential nominations for 2008 are mostly experienced centrists (unlike the Dems and their wacky socialist candidate and the inexperienced senator playing the race card).

[Rictor]

I wouldn't say they'd necessarily be the doom of the nation, but they aren't exactly on track with what their constituents wanted during the election; sure, they got the 100 Hours legislation through, but ever since, I haven't seen one ounce of bipartisanship from the Democrats.  Also, putting polarizing and far-left figures such as Pelosi as leaders in Congress doesn't do much for having a moderate and centrist Congress that would allow for better cooperation.

Pelosi is now far left? C'mon man, I had figured you were smarter than that. Been reading too much Frontpagemag.com?

America has exatly ten leftists, and you can tell which ones they are because they're all handing our political flyers at some rally in Eugene, Oregon, mostly to each other. Show me the person furthest to the left in the US Congress and I will show you center-rightist.

In fact, name me a single Democratic presidential contender who a)supports timely withdrawl from Iraq and b) does not support war against Iran. Everyone's favourite poster boy, Obama, has shown no signs of opposing either of the two current wars or the third one that's being cooked up. And I don't thing I even need to mention Hilary, who's ever-so-slightly to the left of Pinochet.

[Janos]

& the UN is about flippy-floppy like most liberals are, hypocritical and corrupt.  At least the republicans are consistent with ****ing up.  Democrats say one thing, do a completely different thing, are all over the place on their issues.  They'll be the ones to REALLY **** on their fellow Americans.  Just give it time.  It'll fall apart just like Rome soon, perhaps in our lifetime. 

Oh it's a flip-flop -card and a bad equivalency argument, how cute, I wonder how long it will take for it to grow up :3

And really, how many people who sit and ***** about this stuff are actually involved in doing something about it.  If you are, kudos, but if you aren't, why don't you go do something about it instead of coming here, and bashing people not belonging to your specific political group.  Then again, I guess people need entertainment in some way

What does that have to do with anything? You don't like discussion? Fine, get the **** out of here. Who forces you to post useless garbage here?

[Nuclear1]

In fact, name me a single Democratic presidential contender who a)supports timely withdrawl from Iraq and b) does not support war against Iran. Everyone's favourite poster boy, Obama, has shown no signs of opposing either of the two current wars or the third one that's being cooked up. And I don't thing I even need to mention Hilary, who's ever-so-slightly to the left of Pinochet.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq

Hillary, on the other hand, can't seem to decide what position she's taken.  First she's for the war, then she's against it--all depending on what the voters will be happy with, I guess.

This man, on the other hand, should've been the candidate--knows where he stands, Senate Armed Services Committee, experienced, and centrist.

Pelosi is now far left? C'mon man, I had figured you were smarter than that. Been reading too much Frontpagemag.com?

Well, she sure isn't in the middle, now is she?

[aldo_14]

& the UN is about flippy-floppy like most liberals are, hypocritical and corrupt.  At least the republicans are consistent with ****ing up.  Democrats say one thing, do a completely different thing, are all over the place on their issues.  They'll be the ones to REALLY **** on their fellow Americans.  Just give it time.  It'll fall apart just like Rome soon, perhaps in our lifetime. 

And really, how many people who sit and ***** about this stuff are actually involved in doing something about it.  If you are, kudos, but if you aren't, why don't you go do something about it instead of coming here, and bashing people not belonging to your specific political group.  Then again, I guess people need entertainment in some way

What the **** does the UN have to do with democrats, or liberalism in any form (whether the bastardized US definition or the proper political meaning)?  Presumably most of the rest of the world hating the US is because they're 'lefties', or something?

[karajorma]

Republicans tend to be just as bad, but at least their Presidential nominations for 2008 are mostly experienced centrists

After 8 years of Bush the republicans know damn well that a right-wing candidate wouldn't have a ****ing hope. Don't mistake political expediency for a desire to cooperate.

[Ace]

The problem is quite a few seem to think that they should push someone even more right wing than Bush (I know... I know... but such souless creatures amazingly exist) because it's so obvious that Bush's blunders were all due to him not being a True Conservative(tm).

[wtf_cl0vvn]

& the UN is about flippy-floppy like most liberals are, hypocritical and corrupt.  At least the republicans are consistent with ****ing up.  Democrats say one thing, do a completely different thing, are all over the place on their issues.  They'll be the ones to REALLY **** on their fellow Americans.  Just give it time.  It'll fall apart just like Rome soon, perhaps in our lifetime. 

And really, how many people who sit and ***** about this stuff are actually involved in doing something about it.  If you are, kudos, but if you aren't, why don't you go do something about it instead of coming here, and bashing people not belonging to your specific political group.  Then again, I guess people need entertainment in some way

The UN is "flippy-floppy" because it lacks the power to act on any resolution made unless they are beneficial to the economic and political interests of the United States. How can anything get done that Uncle Sam doesn't approve of if the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council? There shouldnt evenbe any permanent members on the security council. But since there are, the corporate "democracy" of the United States can go ahead and make whatever county it wants its financial and military playground, at the expense of the poor bastards who happen to f**king LIVE there.

But really, this is nothing new. Nothing to get alarmed at. The United States has been curb-stomping democracy for years now. Just look at Cuba, at the Philippines, at Colombia, at Chile, at Vietnam, at Korea, etc.

So let's forget that the United Nations is just a puppet organization used to paint that necessary veneer of legitimacy over the illegal, imperialist, and ethnocentrist actions of the Great American.

Right?

[Aardwolf]

Nix, calling someone who isn't hypocritical and corrupt hypocritical and corrupt when you are favoring a hypocritical and corrupt party is hypocritical.

[Desert Tyrant]

The real irony is I'll bet that DeepSpace9er was all in favour of criminal charges when Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

Lying placing CIA operatives in danger by blowing their cover though, you should get a walk on that one.

Oh, come on, that man has integrity.  Hell, he probley didnt come from getting head 9 times out of ten, and the one time he does, she hangs him for it!  This guy kept america in the peace for eight years, and this **** happens?  We need to start a Charity called "Good Pussy for the President"
There ya go

[DeepSpace9er]

The real irony is I'll bet that DeepSpace9er was all in favour of criminal charges when Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

Lying placing CIA operatives in danger by blowing their cover though, you should get a walk on that one.

She was not under cover when her identity was leaked. She was showing up every day at Langley, which is not an under cover job. Anyone standing outside the gate would know she worked for the CIA. There is no indication beyond political speculation and desire that the Administration leaked her name to get even with Joe Wilson, and if it was the case, the plan backfired turning Plame into a superstar with a bookdeal. The dirty little secret is there was no crime and this entire trial was the result of a witch hunt turned process crime.

Oh, and Clinton lied to a grand jury. AFAIK that is called perjury.

[Turambar]

and bush lied and got us in a war that cost us thousands of lives and has gained us NOTHING.

i dont even know what thats called, but its worse than lying about getting head.

[Janos]

The real irony is I'll bet that DeepSpace9er was all in favour of criminal charges when Clinton lied about getting a blowjob.

Lying placing CIA operatives in danger by blowing their cover though, you should get a walk on that one.

She was not under cover when her identity was leaked. She was showing up every day at Langley, which is not an under cover job. Anyone standing outside the gate would know she worked for the CIA. There is no indication beyond political speculation and desire that the Administration leaked her name to get even with Joe Wilson, and if it was the case, the plan backfired turning Plame into a superstar with a bookdeal. The dirty little secret is there was no crime and this entire trial was the result of a witch hunt turned process crime.

Do you realize what covert means? It's not just about Plame, it's about her connections, front companies and history. There is not a "Covert on/off" -checkbox for clandestine operators! Her identity was classified too so the question of covert or not only matters in terms of how long the jail sentences should be.
Leaking classified material is illegal.

Oh, and Clinton lied to a grand jury. AFAIK that is called perjury.

kkklinton

edited for less flammatory language, don't post tired kids