Ok. Allow me to toss my arms in the air in a moment of exasperation. Everytime Bush and his lies, murdering, and scheming comes up, someone inevitably brings up Clinton as a counter argument.
Ummm why?
I'm sorry... but I didn't like him either... him being an idiot dismisses Bush's crimes how....?`Please enlighten me. It's like a cop nailing a burgler and getting the excuse no but see so-and-so stole cigarettes from the market over there, so I am not guilty of this current theft! Say what?
Clinton is not currently in office. Bush is. Bush is the current problem no matter how you try to spin it.
Please get off this damned two-party mentality. Calling Bush out on his numerous crimes is NOT the same as defending Clinton. Aiiight? Please do try to think outside the two-part box for just one stinkin minute....
|
|
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 229
It's as if they're saying that Bush can do whatever the hell he wants, since he did not cheat on his wife. He may not have cheated on Laura (that I know of) but he's cheating on the entire country!!
Heya Leah... I swear if I bang my head on the desk one more time, I'll have to put myself in the hands of the inept US medical system...
Thomas... rhetoric? The fucktard admitted publicly to a MAJOR lie he had been holding to for awhile now.. the aforementioned 'secret' prisons. Does that not give you pause to rethink everything else?
Flounder? Did ya read a thing I said...?
You have been answered on this numerous times. Each time you dismiss it as mere rhetoric. Were the prisons the EU accused him of having all over Europe (and he denied existed) rhetoric? Open your eyes, man.
Last time I checked, torture was a crime.
That is funny as hell...( the juror's response, not the situation.)
You have dismissed solid evidence as rhetoric.
You refuse to entertain any information which does not coincide with your pet delusions.
The point here is that not everyone falls into "either/or". Seeing Bush for what he is does NOT automatically equate with supporting Clinton. THAT is the point.
Heya Sus... I'll save Blair and his cameras everywhere you turn for a different article. heh.
Did you bother to follow her link....?
didn't think so... she answered the question quite well.
But you gotta give him an A for effort.
Bill was acuse of one crime namely lying on a personal matter.
Are you saying that Bush didn't lie about the prisons oversees, a subject very much within his job description?
And there it is again. The two-party BS.
election fraud
Gulf War Syndrome
Again you dismiss them with a wave of your hand, validating why any discussion with you is a waste of time. At least Flounder is fun to slap around a bit.
I seriously doubt you read those links in the two minutes and fourteen seconds since I posted them, but nice try.
Without having to look anything up. Here's a crime: cocaine. Another: keeping foreign detainees for up to 5 years without giving them POW status. Another: wiretapping citizens' conversations without a warrant.
Want more? The last two are more than serious enough to ignore the first crime and go for higher sentencing in any court of law.
Lori, I don't know you, but I know plenty like you : conspiracy theorists with a chip on your shoulder. You would be better served to donate your time to a homeless shelter helping those your purport to want to help, than to spew your untenable ideas in a public place............that is called 'bomb-throwing'. Bomb-throwing only works as long as there are people around you to blow up - and everyone here seems to have a bomb-proof bullshit meter.
Lori, and those like her - I realize you're angry. Mr. Bush's stance on many issues rankle your wild-eyed Left wing ideals. However, this is a Center-Right country (it has been since Reagan), and you have no play here. Say what you want, but please keep it civil...........and when you state the "facts", just make sure those facts have been accepted by EVERYONE as facts. Otherwise, they're just ill-tempered rants. And I, for one, would much rather pay to hear Dennis Miller rant.
There. were. no. secret. prisons. and. Bush. NEVER. lied. about. anything.
I'm sorry Flounder.. you are just far too witty for me. That one flew so far over my head I had no idea how to even begin to respond to it....
Will you wild-eyed Liberals only go to war when a tank has it's big gun pointed at your house? This is a war, whether you like it or not.
In addition, I thought it was a stroke of genius to move these scum to Guantanamo. The Left's argument to shut it down is very hollow with 14 of the world's worst inside Gitmo's confines.
Another one who obviously did not read the original article.
I was a registered republican my entire adult life... right up to the point when I realized tghat republicans were no longer republicans, and the party had in fact done a 180.
Wake up. The real republicans are no Libertarians.
Again... try to get your addled brain OUT of the two-party mentality, please.
Torture has been commited and proven in a court of law. Nazi Germany did not find the perpetrators legally responsible for torture and killing. They were not tried until after the war. The US has found a few individuals guilty of commtting torture as defined by the United States Supreme under general Article 3 of international law. If you listen to Bush, his proposal is to have congress create a precise list of unacceptable activities that represent torture. I have to wonder how urine was accidently spilled on the holy scripture of another culture and doubt thinks like that will be covered.
Secondly, invading a country which has caused no attacks to occur in this country is another violation of international law. Iraq was a sovreign state. Bush justified his invasion of Iraq with lies to our citizens and leadership (if one can call them that).
Tertiary: no one keeps secret prisons without keeping secrets. Bush has yet to explain the purpose of secret prisons and holding individuals, without benegit of legal process, for years.
My last argument is that Bush, who was placed in to office by the United States Supreme Court, not by popluar vote, now disagrees with courts because they have ruled that he did not have the power to circumvent the legal system to installed the NSA oversight, did not have the power to retain individuals forever without benefit of legal process and many other infractions.
I am just mad as can be because Bush outright lied to the citizens. Let him invade Suadi Arabia since that is where bin laden and his croonies came from.
Last thought. News reports indicate Bush has violated as many as 700+ laws because he feels as president he can do what he feels is required to protect this country. How does that make him any better than saddam? Bush can still be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
5 years and bin laden is still at large. Has anyone found bin laden? Now let's get back to fighting those who attacked this country and quit trying to force our culture, egocentric as it is, on the rest of the world.
Besides, I just finished the Center for Constitutional Rights' Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush. It was laughable, and almost every legal scholar in the country has lambasted it, and the idea of even proposing Impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush.
Your Left-wing slogan has no clothes, Emperor!
The real terrorists in this is the current US regime.They have done far more to harm American freedom than the other terrorists could even dream of.
And yes, there were torture convictions. They have yet to go up the chain of command and prosecute them too, but they should, and I hope eventually that does come to pass.
The Abu Graibh prosecutions are convicting those who are the perpetrators. They did not have any authorization from anyone above them and that came out in court. Lori, you won't see anyone above these low-level soldiers receive punishment. Sorry to burst your bubble.
You can't take away human rights and civil liberties just because it's inconvenient or under the flag of "security." After all "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither" (John Stewart Mill). That means you can't wiretap without a warrant and you can't imprison anyone without charges. It's part of the highest authority of this nation, the Constitution, and has been echoed in international law. It's anti-American to think otherwise.
I am a retired Criminologist, so I saw numerous instances of people who were not innocent in any way not being charged.
There is a difference between no crime being committed and no crime being charged...
On the torture issue, I'm certainly aware of the troops that were prosecuted...but that does not make Bush a criminal.
Lori, if the crime is not charge...is it a crime?
Part of the reason people are so irate not only at Bush and his cabinet is the climate of smoke and mirrors that this administration has established to foil any attempt at "proving" illegality. People are fed up with the deception. I'm a parent and I know when I'm told a lie. I think this administration lies so regularly that it all starts to sound true.
The sad thing is that when all is said and done, history will look back and recount a presidency that created a breeding gound of terrorism in Iraq and world-wide havok, and the guy responsible lived the rest of his days chopping kindling on his ranch.
We see the deception unfolding (WMD's in Iraq, wire-tapping, secret prisons outsourcing torture) but nothing sticks on Bush because he's coated with oil. What is laughable is how altruistic he tries to sound, when his true motive is obvious: greed and the persuit of power.
Now why would anyone be angry about that? Oh yeah, they hate us because we're free. Must remember that.
so yes. there is precedent to this belief that it is what happened with 9/11. It is not just a wild conspiracy theory with no grounds whatsoever.
Yes.
Once 9/11 did happen, Mr. Bush put a plan together to consolidate ALL intelligence under one Intelligence Czar - John Negroponte. Now these entities can all legally communicate with each other. The only question in looking back is : why would Mr. Bush's predecessor do such a thing?
To answer your question : If I was in charge, given the rules of intelligence gather at the time of 9/11, I would have done EXACTLY as Mr. Bush did. To do anything else would have been illegal, since we were not at war with anyone on September 10th and before.........and hence, no War Powers could be conferred upon me.
Johnny, conspiracy theories are creepy for a reason : they're usually based on unfounded rumors or beliefs, not on well-accepted and universally agreed-upon facts. For example - the creepy and unfounded (and preposterous) idea that 9/11 was a Jewish plot is utterly stupid, and yet a large percentage of the Muslim world completely swallowed this nutjob theory.
You see what I mean? When something that stupid gets out into the public consciousness, someone is bound to absorb it. Now, Ahmedinejad in Iran is spewing it as though it were on the front page of the New York Times.
The important thing is that we ridicule and banish the stupider ones.........LOL.
What's good enough for George Bush to invade Iraq isn't good enough for the rest of us? Fairly hypocritical stance (and please don't tell me you still think Saddam had WMDs).
But I do agree with one of your points: "When something that stupid gets out into the public consciousness, someone is bound to absorb it."
Close to 51% of people, in fact, in November of 2004.
Lastly, you "hear" there's more than one way to spell "Ockham's Razor"? That sounds like you're basing opinions on rumor and conjecture, not facts. The theory is named after William of Ockham. Ockham is a small village in England. "Achem" is not.
Intelligence of expression is not "some sideline issue", Bret. It's an extremely important factor in giving one's ideas merit. But perhaps you wouldn't understand that, seeing as you blindly follow a man--a man who's supposed to be the leader of the free world--who thinks the word is pronounced "nukeular".
Intelligence of expression, Johnny? I was talking about Conspiracy Theories, which was the thread linking most of the last half hour.
Personally Johnny, I have always been a conservative Democrat in the mold of JFK, Truman, and Scoop Jackson. Now I have to admit, I'm just a conservative, since there are no more conservative Democrats around.
I follow no one. I make choices based on performance............and sometimes I don't agree 100% with the actions of the people I support. I don't think that's possible any more. There are just too many issues of importance.
Congress is part of the part. One way to address all this corruption and lack of productive activity is to have term limits.
Short of that, time will tell whether Bush actually committed crimes or pushed the envelope. As these cases wind through the Supreme Court, we will figure out what Bush's true legacy is. Yes, I know the current prevailing opinion of what his legacy will be, but history, with 20/20 hindsight, may judge differently.
What country? North Korea?
I missed your post which answered Sandy somehow... oh wait. You didn't post one.
Please, again, define Conspiracy Theory.
A perfect illustration of the childish conservative mindset. The political spectrum isn't a fragile driving force behind the potential progress of civilized mankind...it's a football game! "Yay for my team!"
If you insist on "keeping score", Bret, since you mentioned the Taliban...how's that hunt for Bin Laden going?
I would like two: one from the dictionary, and the one you personally use.
That would also apply to the low-income majority of conservaties who Bush's administration has so easily convinced that they're good for them...when they only people they actually are good for--from a financial standpoint--is the compartively miniscule percentage of the country's wealthiest citizens.
I'm sure you're a member of the latter, Bret, which would make your support of Bush completely sensible. You can't possibly be one of the majority suckers.