You'll get over it!

non story, even the people who assured us he was telling the truth never really believed it themselves. They just got carried away rooting for the precious team.

Tabatha Static: i27.photobucket.com

Why is she hitting him with Mickey's hat from The Sorceror's Apprentice?

How soon before Republicans swing back to lecturing America about the dangers of moral relativism?

Control_this: How soon before Republicans swing back to lecturing America about the dangers of moral relativism?

It's not relativism when we do it!

Even though I lean toward the leftist viewpoint, I wanted Bush to be right. If it was truly in the best interest of our and their country, then war would be the answer. But, as these past few years have shown, it was one of the biggest mistakes that we could have ever made.

Now, we find that our President lied to start this catastrophe.

I don't see how anyone can support him now, or admit that they ever did.

I think it was more about him lying under oath that was the issue... at least, that's the best thing the conservatives can hang their hat on.

Still, lying under oath about an affair, which makes the whole situation that much sillier, but hey- it's all they had.

If Bush lied under oath, we wouldn't even have this conversation, but we weren't quite that lucky. Solution? Let's get that asshole to put a hand on a bible, take the oath and start asking questions again.

El Morro: If Bush lied under oath

And that will never happen because Bush will just exert "executive privilege" and refuse to testify.

There is absolute, unarguable DNA proof that Clinton lied.

The same can't be said about Bush -- is there evidence that he may have ignored contradictory intelligence? Yes, I think that charge has been sufficiently leveled against Bush multiple times. But one is very, very cut and dry and the other is more based on innuendo and speculation. The President chose set X of intelligence rather than set Y to place his faith in. He was wrong.

It's also clear that the administration picked the wrong rationale to sell the war. If they tried to couch it in terms of democratizing the Middle East by getting rid of one of the most anti-US world leaders, perhaps they wouldn't be in this mess they are in today.

Postal Penguin: And that will never happen because Bush will just exert "executive privilege" and refuse to testify.

Because the charges being leveled against him for lying deal directly with his duties as President and Commander-in-Chief, whereas Clinton couldn't invoke executive privilege because the charges were un-related to his duties as the top Executive.

Subby, you just don't understand. Getting a beej from a woman that you aren't married to is a much larger moral hazard than starting a war based on evidence that you've had cooked to give you the excuse.

/BJ's from strange men in public restrooms don't count, because that's God's blind spot.

KaponoFor3:

There is absolute, unarguable DNA proof that Clinton lied.

Quibble 'bout dribbles and stained dresses bud
There's DNA in every dead soldiers' blood.

KaponoFor3: It's also clear that the administration picked the wrong rationale to sell the war. If they tried to couch it in terms of democratizing the Middle East by getting rid of one of the most anti-US world leaders, perhaps they wouldn't be in this mess they are in today.

You're absolutely right, because they never would've gotten the invasion authorized with a neocon wet-dream for a justification.

If you are still paying attention to the corporate whore media you are too stupid to live.

I would only read an idiot like Broader if i wanted to know what not to do.

SherKhan: Quibble 'bout dribbles and stained dresses bud
There's DNA in every dead soldiers' blood.

Win.

Wolf_Blitzer: You're absolutely right, because they never would've gotten the invasion authorized with a neocon wet-dream for a justification.

That's speculation. I think they might have been able to get the justification across, but it would have required a full court press and the use of better communicators than just Bush.

KaponoFor3: But one is very, very cut and dry and the other is more based on innuendo and speculation. The President chose set X of intelligence rather than set Y to place his faith in. He was wrong.

"Chose" is the operative word there. Gosh it sounds so innocent! So what you're saying is, he wasn't maliciously LYING, he was just - dumb. Well that's a much better presidential trait.

And, I think that the salient point here is the outcome. The "cut and dry" lie was about 2 people having sex. The WMD speculation lie was/is about thousnds of deaths and profiteering.

El Morro: Solution? Let's get that asshole to put a hand on a bible, take the oath and start asking questions again.

He'll never do it. They burn his flesh.

KaponoFor3: Wolf_Blitzer: You're absolutely right, because they never would've gotten the invasion authorized with a neocon wet-dream for a justification.

That's speculation. I think they might have been able to get the justification across, but it would have required a full court press and the use of better communicators than just Bush.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

KaponoFor3: There is absolute, unarguable DNA proof that Clinton lied.

The same can't be said about Bush -- is there evidence that he may have ignored contradictory intelligence? Yes, I think that charge has been sufficiently leveled against Bush multiple times. But one is very, very cut and dry and the other is more based on innuendo and speculation. The President chose set X of intelligence rather than set Y to place his faith in. He was wrong.


There's a concept in American Law called circumstantial evidence, though (and no, I don't have my GED in law): if the guy has blood all over his hands, smells like gunpowder, and was just overheard yelling "I'm going to shoot my wife in the head", you don't necessarily need the DNA report to convict him for shooting his wife in the head.

how in hell's bells did that happen?

KaponoFor3: The same can't be said about Bush -- is there evidence that he may have ignored contradictory intelligence? Yes, I think that charge has been sufficiently leveled against Bush multiple times. But one is very, very cut and dry and the other is more based on innuendo and speculation. The President chose set X of intelligence rather than set Y to place his faith in. He was wrong.


Ok, let's assume for the moment that you are correct. That Bush was in a grey area and that he had two contradictory sets of information, both of which appeared to be correct. The President hat a choice: he could go the diplomatic route and verify his information, or he could launch the country into a costly war that could split the country in a time of crises.

The President chose to go to war. He didn't have to start shooting at people, but he did. He could have used all the vast resources of the US government to track down and verify information, he could have used the sympathy from countries around the world to build a true coalition against global terror...but he didn't. He could have opted for MORE transparency in government and reaffirmed the rights and protections of the citizens of this country...but he didn't. Instead, the President chose to believe information that put the country into GREATER risk. He chose to sign into law the Patriot Act.

When push came to shove, Bush reacted not based on cool evaluation of data and consideration of the long term consequences of his actions - he flew off the handle, played word games with the evidence and launched us into a war in the middle east.

So even if you want to believe that Bush is somehow innocent of any wrongdoing, you still MUST concede that he failed as a leader. Rock and a hard place if you ask me. Personally, I think Bush's actions will cost the Republican party their place in national government for at least the next 10 years.

HakunaMatata: Gosh it sounds so innocent! So what you're saying is, he wasn't maliciously LYING, he was just - dumb. Well that's a much better presidential trait.

That's exactly what I'm saying -- he wasn't maliciously lying, he was dumb. Dumb doesn't attribute an evil motive to it.

HakunaMatata: And, I think that the salient point here is the outcome. The "cut and dry" lie was about 2 people having sex. The WMD speculation lie was/is about thousnds of deaths and profiteering.

Unfortunately one was under oath and didn't relate to his duties as President or Commander in Chief. The other "lie" really can't be proven in the same way that Clinton's lie can be proven.

KaponoFor3: If they tried to couch it in terms of democratizing the Middle East by getting rid of one of the most anti-US world leaders, perhaps they wouldn't be in this mess they are in today.

What a dumbass. He probably thinks he's democratized Iraq.

real shaman: You'll get over it!

no, they won't - ever. and that's why they're campaigning against Bush this election. and THAT is a big part of why they'll lose. AGAIN.

Remember, it's not a lie if you believe it...

KaponoFor3: There is absolute, unarguable DNA proof that Clinton lied.

The same can't be said about Bush -- is there evidence that he may have ignored contradictory intelligence? Yes, I think that charge has been sufficiently leveled against Bush multiple times. But one is very, very cut and dry and the other is more based on innuendo and speculation. The President chose set X of intelligence rather than set Y to place his faith in. He was wrong.

It's also clear that the administration picked the wrong rationale to sell the war. If they tried to couch it in terms of democratizing the Middle East by getting rid of one of the most anti-US world leaders, perhaps they wouldn't be in this mess they are in today.

Iraq had to be painted as a direct threat to us or others, otherwise it would be an illegal war of aggression. Hard as it was to sell this mess to the world, selling it as 'we don't like this guy or their system of government' wouldn't have flown at all.

KaponoFor3:

Wolf_Blitzer: You're absolutely right, because they never would've gotten the invasion authorized with a neocon wet-dream for a justification.

That's speculation. I think they might have been able to get the justification across, but it would have required a full court press and the use of better communicators than just Bush.


You're trippin' balls, aren't you?

CalvinMorallis: KaponoFor3: There is absolute, unarguable DNA proof that Clinton lied.

The same can't be said about Bush -- is there evidence that he may have ignored contradictory intelligence? Yes, I think that charge has been sufficiently leveled against Bush multiple times. But one is very, very cut and dry and the other is more based on innuendo and speculation. The President chose set X of intelligence rather than set Y to place his faith in. He was wrong.


There's a concept in American Law called circumstantial evidence, though (and no, I don't have my GED in law): if the guy has blood all over his hands, smells like gunpowder, and was just overheard yelling "I'm going to shoot my wife in the head", you don't necessarily need the DNA report to convict him for shooting his wife in the head.

The point why was Clinin asked about a private matter in the first place. Arcibald Cox said he found a number of incosistences in what Nixon said, yet, they were about his personal life and he let it pass.

On the other hand Ken Starr coudl find NOTHING ELSE, so it was a sex scandel or no report!

What happened was betwen Hillary & Bill ONLY!!

However, W is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and he was too much of schmuck to ask questions. He also is vindisctive and spiteful and did not want to liten to reason and so we killed tsn of thousands of people for NOTHNG.

THIS ALL HAPPENED B/C THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT SAID VOTE FOR BUS AND THE DID!

BTW, WHY WAS SADDAM HAVING WMD AND THREAT TO THE USA? ANSWER IT NEVER WAS!

CalvinMorallis: There's a concept in American Law called circumstantial evidence

As a lawyer, I'm somewhat familiar with the concept of "circumstantial evidence". Is it good when it's the best you've got? Sure. But it's really easy to poke holes in a case that is based solely on circumstantial evidence. Reasonable doubt becomes easy.

Weaver95: So even if you want to believe that Bush is somehow innocent of any wrongdoing, you still MUST concede that he failed as a leader

Maybe I'm not being clear -- I don't think that he is innocent of any wrongdoing in the sense that he chose the wrong set of intelligence to believe. I think he was likely motivated by aspects of revenge and strategic considerations that favored "yes war" rather than "no war".

And I do absolutely concede that he failed as a leader. The fark up after rolling to Baghdad makes that very, very clear.

Weaver95: Personally, I think Bush's actions will cost the Republican party their place in national government for at least the next 10 years.

Barring the rise to prominence of a Barack Obama-like figure on the GOP side or a new conservative ideological revolution within the GOP, I sadly have to agree.

KaponoFor3: HakunaMatata: Gosh it sounds so innocent! So what you're saying is, he wasn't maliciously LYING, he was just - dumb. Well that's a much better presidential trait.

That's exactly what I'm saying -- he wasn't maliciously lying, he was dumb. Dumb doesn't attribute an evil motive to it.

HakunaMatata: And, I think that the salient point here is the outcome. The "cut and dry" lie was about 2 people having sex. The WMD speculation lie was/is about thousnds of deaths and profiteering.

Unfortunately one was under oath and didn't relate to his duties as President or Commander in Chief. The other "lie" really can't be proven in the same way that Clinton's lie can be proven.

No, he was lying. He lied about the rationale for war. That's lying. He said there was WMD's, there wasn't. He lied. It's very simple, yet you will continue to explain it away.

actually Bush is always under oath.
his oath of office. and that makes it illegal to knowingly lie to congress and the American people. I think it's more than demonstrable that they kept telling us stuff that had been proven false and they had been told not to say.

Rascal King: Hard as it was to sell this mess to the world, selling it as 'we don't like this guy or their system of government' wouldn't have flown at all.

It might have, it might not have -- it CLEARLY would have been a better justification than the WMD rationale. We will unfortunately never know.

DrBenway: You're trippin' balls, aren't you?

No way man, that was last night. I'm chill now.

growinthings: The point why was Clinin asked about a private matter in the first place.

Check the Wiki for those answers, not really wanting to re-hash that whole thing again.

PottyMcNugg: He said there was WMD's, there wasn't. He lied. It's very simple, yet you will continue to explain it away

If things were that black and white, then it would be that simple. However, there is an intent difference between one "lying" and one merely being wrong or even negligent. Lying implies a complete knowledge that what you are saying is false. I don't think Bush had that knowledge -- clearly others believe he did.

KaponoFor3: As a lawyer, I'm somewhat familiar with the concept of "circumstantial evidence". Is it good when it's the best you've got? Sure. But it's really easy to poke holes in a case that is based solely on circumstantial evidence. Reasonable doubt becomes easy.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and so I was trying to be careful about just casually tossing that phrase around. anywho.

Again, though, if all we had was, say, Richard Clark coming out and telling us the administration lied, then okay, I'm willing to say that maybe someone's just trying to cash in on selling a book. And maybe if, in addition to Richard Clark, we had, say, Colin Powell admitting that, yeah, things were kind of overblown, then I'd still be willing to say that it could all be coincidental.

But the fact is, you have no less than 2 former press secretaries telling us this shiat was going on, you have Richard Clark telling us this shiat was going on, you have our own goddamn common farking sense telling us this was going on, and now there's the Intelligence Report...and it all says the same damn thing: THEY LIED.

You're right--circumstantial evidence is easy to poke holes in; but doesn't there come a point when there's so much of it built up that alternate scenarios just don't make sense?

KaponoFor3: Barring the rise to prominence of a Barack Obama-like figure on the GOP side or a new conservative ideological revolution within the GOP, I sadly have to agree.

The Republican party has nobody to blame but themselves. When they abandoned fiscal conservatives for the relgious right, they started the slide to obscurity.

Most people who are Republican (and not insane) are fiscally conservative/socially liberal. Or, to put it another way, none of us really care what you smoke or who you're banging - just don't cost 'we the people' any money while you do it and try not to kill anyone.

Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' (new window)

SherKhan Quote 2008-06-07 12:12:54 PM
KaponoFor3:

There is absolute, unarguable DNA proof that Clinton lied.

Quibble 'bout dribbles and stained dresses bud
There's DNA in every dead soldiers' blood.


*whistle* point SherKhan

The Republicans went down the road the left went in the 60s: let the freaks have free, unfettered reign. They will not recover from this for a long time.

Weaver95: Personally, I think Bush's actions will cost the Republican party their place in national government for at least the next 10 years.

At least 12 and probably 14. Dems will win this election cycle and after the 2010 census they'll gerrymander the districts to protect their seats until the 2020 census.

Weaver95: Most people who are Republican (and not insane) are fiscally conservative/socially liberal. Or, to put it another way, none of us really care what you smoke or who you're banging - just don't cost 'we the people' any money while you do it and try not to kill anyone.

If only...

Weaver95: The Republican party has nobody to blame but themselves. When they abandoned fiscal conservatives for the relgious right, they started the slide to obscurity.

Hey I couldn't agree more. I wish they would abandon the religious right and try to find a happy "fiscally conservative, socially libertarian" platform. That would get droves of people back to the party if they actually followed up on it.

What gets me is that I heard McCain *favorably* quote chairman Mao in one of his stump speeches last week. And I couldn't help thinking to myself 'yeah, thanks John. Because what fiscal conservatives really want to hear from the Republican candidate is how great a guy chairman Mao was...'

Fox News quickly cut off the speech after that speech too. I think even they realized what an idiotic thing that was to say.

KaponoFor3:

Wolf_Blitzer: You're absolutely right, because they never would've gotten the invasion authorized with a neocon wet-dream for a justification.

That's speculation. I think they might have been able to get the justification across, but it would have required a full court press and the use of better communicators than just Bush.


Bush ran on a platform against nation building, it would never have happened without a trumped up threat.

RyanWillia: Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over' (new window)

its frightening how uncannily accurate that turned out to be.

Project for the New American Century.

The website is gone, but their documents (including "Rebuilding America's Defenses") are available at other sites. Numerous high-ranking members of the Bush administration were members of PNAC, which was pushing for regime change in Iraq from the get-go (1997.)

Weaver95: What gets me is that I heard McCain *favorably* quote chairman Mao in one of his stump speeches last week.

Are you kidding?!?