Genocidal coward Bush and his war evasion

[jimbutorac]

hansen,

i don't get it. both guys are running for president. so bush takes more than kerry from special interests. i'm supposed to discount that cause bush was president and kerry only a senator.

And just out of curiosity, how do you feel about traditional conservatives like O'Neill, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Heritage foundation criticizing his policies?

 

[hansenbros.]

you're kidding me aren't you???? you really don't believe sentors recieve as much special interest $$$$ as presidents, do you????? let's just hope that that's not the case.

as for conservatives criticizing some of bush's policies -- that is what seperates conservs from libs -- conservs don't blindly agree w/ everything a conserv admin does and/or says. libs, on the other hand, consistently lower the bar to agree with their admin's. for example, refusing to admonish clinton for committing perjury let alone his LONG list of embarrassing indiscretions. that is why the american people are runnig from their party in droves; they are tired of their lack of leadership, their cowardice; and how they are just flat out out of touch with the people.

first Iraq, then France

 

[xpanda]

Nobody should have been asking Clinton about his extramarital exploits in the first place. Who, besides Hilary and Chelsea, have a right to know what Bill's sex life does or does not involve? Similarly, smearing Bush right now over his military record is also inconsequential.

As for special interest funding, it should be abolished altogether. There is no way a candidate or President or Senator can claim to be objective and 'for the people' when somebody's just handed them a million bucks to 'do the right thing.' Citizen votes mean squat when corporate and lobbyist interests are put in the spotlight like that. Business and government (like religion and government) should simply not be sleeping in the same bed. Martha Stewart is going down for a transaction that would have cost her $45,000 and this type of set-up isn't considered a conflict of interest??? Money corrupts.

 

[hansenbros.]

for ONCE, agree (sort-of). i agree $$$ corrupts, and i'm on the fence about spc interest $$$. however, to say what slippery bill did in OUR white house, on OUR dime, while he was MARRIED, is only up to his wife and daughter is completely misguided!!!! not to mention, his perjury!!!! come on X, let's raise the bar just a little!!!!

first Iraq, then France

 

[ChuckSims]

As a Gulf War Vet I am sickened by this pussy(Bush) we got as Pres. I fought for our freedom not for this AWOL bum of a Pres. to give up our civil liberties with this bullshit Patriot act. Bush has got to go by any means necessary.

 

[xpanda]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hansen bros.:
for ONCE, agree (sort-of). i agree $$$ corrupts, and i'm on the fence about spc interest $$$. however, to say what slippery bill did in OUR white house, on OUR dime, while he was MARRIED, is only up to his wife and daughter is completely misguided!!!! not to mention, his perjury!!!! come on X, let's raise the bar just a little!!!!

first Iraq, then France<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alright, let's raise the bar a little. Let's try focusing on what the President (or PM, here) was hired by his citizens to do -- look out for their best interests. Your anger at Clinton because he was getting head during his 'working' hours is misplaced. I'm pretty sure that these guys aren't on a 9 to 5 schedule, and that lots of questionable things are done while they're 'working.' However, of all the things that you could worry about, I couldn't believe that whether or not Clinton was adulterous was such a big deal. The fact that he lied about it when asked shouldn't have been such a big deal, either. It wasn't as though he was charged with sexual assault or something -- which would be an entirely different problem altogether.

And, let's face it, if Clinton can face impeachment for lying about a blowjob, then certainly Bush should at least be scrutinised for potentially lying about WMDs ... the former almost cost Clinton his marriage, while the latter cost thousands of lives.

If we're going to talk about raising the bar a little, let's make sure it's focused on things that truly do matter.

 

[jointpleasures]

xpanda,

Bush lied you say. Did he not recieve intelligence and then act upon that intelligence.

I've used this analogy before but lets try again. Let us say your a women who turns 50 and your going through a the menopause. The kind and gentle lady doctor looks you over and says "well there xpanda, I think that if we take your uterus and ovaries out and put you an some medication you'll feel back to 'normal' again." You, as an obvious intelligent women ask the sweet doctor "Is there any side effects to the medication, doctor?" She assures you that the medication has FDA approval and that hundreds of thousand of women are on it now and it is perfectly safe. You then say well doc "lets rip em out." A few years later all of a sudden you develop breast cancer. It becomes apparent now as well, that many women who have had this procedure and have taken the meds have developed breast cancer at an alrming rate. NEW studies reveal there is a link to the medication and brest cancer. Are you going to blame the doctor for giving you the medication which led to the breast cancer? Or are you going to blame the pharmacuetical company who did the research and developed this drug? Or are you going to blame the FDA? Or blame them all?

 

[lander]

Bush was advised by CIA Director George Tenet not to use the infamous "evidence of Iraq seeking Uranium enrichments from Niger" as that information was not validated.

Bush used it anyways - because it was a powerful assertion that would put American on his side.

Don't pawn this crap off on the CIA - Bushie doesn't heed to their advice anyway.

 

[xpanda]

JP: I think I said, oh, wait, yes I did say:

'Bush should at least by scrutinised for potentially lying about WMDs.'

Did I say he lied, or did I say he potentially lied?

Having Bush appoint the commission to scritinise the CIA is alot like the pharamaceutical company in your scenario appointing both the judge and prosecutor in defence of the FDA and doctor. The fact that Bush, in his 'Meet the Press' interview on Sunday, stated that he would not 'testify' in this case, but may 'visit with them' is ridiculous, as well. The whole thing smacks of a conflict of interest, at best, and a cover-up, at worst.

(I want you to imagine Clinton appointing a commission to look into his blowjob habits. Can you seriously say with a straight face that this would not faze you?)

 

[TheGeneral+]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck Sims:
As a Gulf War Vet I am sickened by this pussy(Bush) we got as Pres. I fought for our freedom not for this AWOL bum of a Pres. to give up our civil liberties with this bullshit Patriot act. Bush has got to go by any means necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[hansenbros.]

come on man!!!! you are telling me that it is okay for the president of the US to get head in the oval office, while married???
and your going to tell me that lying to a federal grand jury is no big deal?????

we are DONE! i sure hope you do not have the right to vote

this country is going right to hell because of the likes of you and your reprehensible ideologies! no wonder janet felt it okay to whip out a breast!!! JESUS!!!

and as for the incredibley twisted analogy to wmd's -- the clinton admin said he had wmd's, thirty other countries said he had wmd's, he used wmds on his own people. let alone bush was not going to war so he could come in his pants; he went to war to get rid of a very bad man; a man that has spawned terror and has killed millions of people -- iraq is much better off without him!!!!!!!!!! get over it!! and raise your F-ing gutter-ridden standards!!! please!!

first Iraq, then France

 

[xpanda]

I don't think it's 'okay' for a President to cheat. I don't think it's 'okay' for anyone to cheat. I just don't think it's a big enough issue to spend so much time and money on it. On a scale of one to ten, one being no big deal and ten being a huge deal, Clinton's BJ should garner a 3, while Bush's Iraq debacle should garner at least a 9.

I really don't think I'm the one with the screwed up priorities here.

 

[Massmilwaukee]

Hanson Brother,

I have asked this before of Cons, but I will ask again. Based on the logic of invading Iraq, which as far as I can tell is something like this; may be in possession, past atrocities, evil man, may have terrorist links, now a safer country, please rate from 1-5, the next five countries that should be invaded because; may be in possession, past atrocities, evil dictator, king, tyrant, despot or autocrat, may have terrorist links, and in your opinion... would be a safer country.

If I were Cheney:
1. Saudi Arabia - They just have far too much oil for their own good and well, lets face it, OBL has more links with SA than Afghanistan.
2. China - Those Chinese are crazy as hell. They are pirating our CD's, movies, and now cars. They have some big fvcking nukes, Taiwan is just another piece of China, and lets face it, they like killing their citizens.
3. North Korea - Kim is crazy as hell. 100k's of their citizens starve to death, he likes fission and fusion, and everyone knows he wants to befriend South Korea in a bend over and grab your ankles sort of way.
4. Cuba - Their education and medical infrastructure are just too damn impressive. Too many US citizens are just too curious for their own good. and lets not forget, we owe him one.
5. Japan - We owe them just way too much fvcking money...

 

[lander]

I think the genocidal lunatic will go after Iran, Syria and/or Yemen if he steals another election or yy some hellish miracle he actually wins the election fairly (for a change).

 

[KMAN]

I can't figure out why so many, so called "americans", on this board are more outraged at Bush for the accidental killing civilians during a war, than Bin Laden for killing 3000 innocent civilians here in the states.

It baffles me how people think this way.

 

[chonce]

Kman,

Not agreeing with Bush, does not make one a Bin laden apologist.

I HATE bin laden.

I think Bush is a lousy president.


One can feel both ways. Many do.

 

[wilheim]

Chonce, I agree I hate Bin Laden and al Queda. I don't however feel any more or any less comapasion for 3000 innocent civilians killed in New York or in Baghdad. An innocent human being is just that an innocent human being no matter where on the Earth they call home. I feel an equal amount of grief and sorrow for all such innocents.


wil.

 

[chonce]

Exactly.

Humans are humans. Just because a dearth occurs to someone who is not from America, it is no more tragic.

The iraqi children who are now orphans due to this war are deserving of just as much sympathy, as those who are from america.

 

[hansenbros.]

you libs are so misguided it's really sad

i'm so sick of "we can disagree with our president; it's our right; it's our patriotic duty." poppycock!!!! pull your head out!!! hussein starved, tortuted, and killed more of his own people than.... what's the point.... just can't have a civil colloquim with those who are mired in ignorance!

first Iraq, then France