The soldiers in Iraq are true American heroes and they deserve the complete admiration of the entire populace. But doesn't it bother you that the military misled us and fabricated Jessica Lynch's story beyond recognition? What about the integrity that President Bush said he would restore in the White House?

Bush said that he is not breaking a campaign promise when he allows the national debt to increase to almost a trillion dollars. No, he believes that he said he would only allow the deficit to occur during war, recession, or national emergency. Wrong again buddy, your opponent Mr. Gore said that. During the tax break episode, Bush cited reports that the tax cut would create 2 million jobs. There is no such report.

And how about the lack of weapons of mass destruction? Was the public misled about the severity of the Iraqi weapons programs?

How much lying is the Bush White House doing?

Okay sometimes I am a little slow on the uptake, so ccould you tell me WTF you are talking about and give me some links to some credible sources.

Take a look at this opinion article in the Baltimore Sun...

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.values02jun02,0,6557295.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines

Originally posted by demsformd
Take a look at this opinion article in the Baltimore Sun... Well, by God, I'm sure going to take the opinion of some editorialist over my government! Yessireebob!

Dems, doesn't it embarrass you to do stuff like that? Base your opinions on the rantings of someone you don't even know? Do you believe everything George Will says, too, or just when it's a columnist making accusations against Bush? How about Howard Stern? Are his opinions the gospel as well?

Originally posted by demsformd
Take a look at this opinion article in the Baltimore Sun...

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.values02jun02,0,6557295.story?coll=bal%2Doped%2Dheadlines
Sorry I thought I asked for something that's actually accredited. This is just ramblings that make no sense to me. I am a very literal thinker. I need facts and figures not supposition.

But doesn't it bother you that the military misled us and fabricated Jessica Lynch's story beyond recognition? What about the integrity that President Bush said he would restore in the White House?

Ya know, I read all of this nonsense last week. I think It's utterly disgusting that anyone took this heroic story and turned it upside down.

It makes me sick to my stomach. Jessica Lynch would be dead if our soldiers hadn't rescued her.:mad:

Sheesh, can't wait here huh?

Here's some more...
The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/134831081_lynch28.html)
In the process of finding some more sources for you but well the ole wife just made me a great dinner.

NBC News: When President Bush told Congress in January that Iraq had bought uranium, the State department had warned him that the credibility of the story was questionable.

Originally posted by demsformd
How much lying is the Bush White House doing?
If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.

Originally posted by Ken King
If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.

Funny how it always goes back to Clinton. I wonder what the republicans would be saying if clinton had not set such a precedent? What excuses would they have then? Should be fun come campaign time. It could have been easy for the republicans. Could have brought up Clinton, thus making Bush look like an angel. But instead, I guess it will be full of "Well, Clinton did it also, so what?". Could have been such a glorious time, but I guess he's just your typical politician after all.

and the WMD issue came out days ago. A congress team, led my republicans, is launching an investigation to see if they and the country were misled in terms of using WMD as a justification for war. It will be interesting to see the findings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62949-2003May31.html

In an interview with Britain's Sky Television at a Russia-European Union summit, Blair said he had already seen plenty of information that his critics had not, but would in due course.

"Over the coming weeks and months we will assemble this evidence and then we will give it to people," he said. "I have no doubt whatever that the evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be there."
But of course, Saddam Hussein is innocent and right and Blair and Bush are guilty and lying. How like you, ST and Dems, to take the word of a vicious dictator over the word of two leaders of free countries.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054416347356&p=1012571727085

Forget the headline - it has nothing to do with the content of the article.
The new report by Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, revealed that Baghdad supplied information on its illicit weapons programmes up to the eve of military hostilities. But, even at the end, Iraq failed to alleviate fundamental suspicions that it had something to hide.

Unmovic, the UN inspection commission, has continued to analyse data in spite of its sidelining from the weapons hunt. In its latest quarterly report, it said Iraq proffered information on unmanned aircraft and its claimed destruction of anthrax as late as 19 March, hours before the first air strikes.

But while "inspections, declarations and documents submitted by Iraq contributed to a better understanding of past weapons programmes, the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for was (not) shortened", the report says.

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny how it always goes back to Clinton. I wonder what the republicans would be saying if clinton had not set such a precedent?


As opposed to democrats who never look back upon the Reagan and Bush I era, and make the very same sorts of comments?

Originally posted by SmallTown
Funny how it always goes back to Clinton. Who mentioned Clinton? The only person I saw post his name was you, ST. In fact, you wrote his name 4 times in one post. Talk about obsessed!

Uuuh, can someone show even the tiniest bit of evidence that the whole Lynch thing was staged, even after the soldiers and others have testified before the press, blow by blow what happened? And clarified what the press *kept getting wrong* about it? (I mean, c'mon - who are you going to believe, the soldiers themselves, or Jayson Blair of the New York Times?).

What's worse, calling the Lynch thing a lie, or taking some rant as *truth*?

People won't let Clinton rest because Clinton won't let himself rest. Notice how Carter is hardly brought up. If Bill would just stay out of the picture Im sure the instances of his name would just fade out like Bush 1, Regan, Carter, Ford.....of course nobody will ever stop talking about Nixon butt he deserves it.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62949-2003May31.html

But of course, Saddam Hussein is innocent and right and Blair and Bush are guilty and lying. How like you, ST and Dems, to take the word of a vicious dictator over the word of two leaders of free countries.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I only passed along the information regarding the investigation. The person leading up the investigation in Warner, who of course is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Who mentioned Clinton? The only person I saw post his name was you, ST. In fact, you wrote his name 4 times in one post. Talk about obsessed!

Originally posted by Ken King

If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.

Sorry Vrai, I was mistaken. Just when people normally discuss lying in court and under oath during his term, they are normally referencing Clinton. I'm sure Ken King was thinking of other people when he posted that

:rolleyes:

Dems, before you go burning your Bush effigy, here are a few facts to consider IRT the Lynch rescue:

1. This whole "staged" thing came about because of one article, written by the BBC, an organization that was against the war from the start.

2. These reports of no resistance and an unbridled willingness to help this poor soldier were made by Iraqi medical personnel who were found in the company of nine dead Americans, some of whom appear to have been executed and one who was mutilated. If I were found in that position I might want to pass myself off as Mother Teresea as well.

3. At the time of the rescue, the hospital was in enemy-controlled territory. Do you honestly believe that a rescue operation was sent in with blanks??? The Monday-Morning quarterbacks in the media can say all they want about how the Iraqi troops had left the hospital, but that's pretty much worthless information some two months after the fact!

4. Name me one member of central command or the Pentagon who said anything about the events of Lynch's capture. Name me one spokesman or officer who said a word. You can't because the military never said a word besides things like "we're investigating the events..." or "we don't know yet." All of the stories that were reported were dug up by reporters... all wanting to be the first one to get a story, any story, out. How in the heck could anyone know what had happened when the sole witness at the time was zonked out in surgery? Who exactly were these reporters getting their information from? The guy that cleans the bathrooms at Central Command?

This is the exact same thing that we saw with the sniper case. Reporters, out to scoop their competitors, gather information from anyone willing to talk to them. And when that information turns out to be bogus, they blame the official sources, who never released the info in the first place, instead of themselves. Also, you can't attack the Pentagon or White House for not correcting the story, for reasons of wanting to further the war effort, when no one to this day really knows what happened at that ambush.

The bullet holes in the front walls of the hospital didn't get made by blanks, and we got one live American, out of a total of ten, out of that hospital. Unless there was a sudden rash of suicides, at least some of those troops were killed by someone at the hospital. And before you accuse the White House or Pentagon of lying, I would suggest that you find one additional source of info: Find one article or story that claims to be the 100% verified and true account of what happened at the ambush site. How can you expect the White House or Pentagon to say something is true or not until they know what the truth is?

Lastly, please spare us your crocodile tears about how spending is growing. The Dems are pushing for just as much new spending as the Republicans are. If I'm disappointed in anything, it is that sad fact. :frown:

Smalltown,

Of course I meant Clinton. What other President, in recent times, has lied before a court of law? The only one I can think of is your buddy, William Jefferson Clinton. You know, the same jerk that now wants the 22nd Amendment changed so he can run again. And I would be willing to bet that you would vote for him because integrity and truthfulness aren’t important characteristics for you.

Why is it that when you can call a “Spade a Spade” it is okay, but get offended when anyone else does it? To date there is not one single bit of information that could convince me that the Bush administration has lied about anything concerning what has happened in Iraq. On the other hand we have heard the admissions from your hero that he lied when he knowingly misled the court with his untruthful answers.

Also, this has nothing to do with party affiliation as you wrongly contend. I have stated before I am a registered Democrat and I have not changed my membership as of yet. Unlike you and your ilk, I am a Democrat that thinks integrity, character, and telling the truth are important factors for politicians and people in general.

Originally posted by Ken King
Why is it that when you can call a “Spade a Spade” it is okay, but get offended when anyone else does it?

I wasn't offended by that. I just hate to see educated people using the F-ups of other people to justify their own.

As far as Clinton goes, I really don't know where it came off that I love Clinton? I never voted for the man. You can point those messages toward dems and smcdem, tyvm.

Originally posted by Ken King
Of course I meant Clinton. What other President, in recent times, has lied before a court of law?

So I guess Vrai just couldn't figure it out?

Originally posted by SmallTown
I wasn't offended by that. I just hate to see educated people using the F-ups of other people to justify their own.

As far as Clinton goes, I really don't know where it came off that I love Clinton? I never voted for the man. You can point those messages toward dems and smcdem, tyvm. No one is using it to justify anything, just making a statement. Or is it that everyone must respond as you anticipate?

You love Clinton and we know you do. You probably have a picture of him and his wife in your wallet, on your desk, and beside your bed. It is obvious he is your hero, as you constantly get irked whenever anyone disparages him. Your actions (posts) do not jive with your claim; I guess it is just the result of your hero worship.

Originally posted by Ken King
No one is using it to justify anything, just making a statement. Or is it that everyone must respond as you anticipate?


Originally posted by Ken King

If there has been any lying I would say that none of it was before a court and under oath, unlike what the precedent setting hero of the forked-tongue did during his term.


Right there you justified that *IF* Bush lied, it wasn't nearly as bad as Clinton.

Originally posted by Ken King

It is obvious he is your hero, as you constantly get irked whenever anyone disparages him. Your actions (posts) do not jive with your claim; I guess it is just the result of your hero worship.

Stupidity irks me, not bashing Clinton. I bashed Clinton all the time when he was in office. But he is yesterdays news. And I don't see how Clinton lying has anything at all to do with the recent claims out of Iraq.

Originally posted by demsformd
The soldiers in Iraq are true American heroes and they deserve the complete admiration of the entire populace. But doesn't it bother you that the military misled us and fabricated Jessica Lynch's story beyond recognition? What about the integrity that President Bush said he would restore in the White House?

Bush said that he is not breaking a campaign promise when he allows the national debt to increase to almost a trillion dollars. No, he believes that he said he would only allow the deficit to occur during war, recession, or national emergency. Wrong again buddy, your opponent Mr. Gore said that. During the tax break episode, Bush cited reports that the tax cut would create 2 million jobs. There is no such report.

And how about the lack of weapons of mass destruction? Was the public misled about the severity of the Iraqi weapons programs?

How much lying is the Bush White House doing?

I hate liberals. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by pixiegirl
I hate liberals. :rolleyes:

These are the posts I love. Short and sweet, just like the person posting it :love:

Ok, maybe that way laying it on a little thick. Still hoping she'll give me a ride in her cool car sometime :biggrin:

Originally posted by SmallTown
Right there you justified that *IF* Bush lied, it wasn't nearly as bad as Clinton.
"If" is not a justifier, it is a questioning clarifier, meaning that I challenge the accuracy of the information being reported and the relevancy of it.


Stupidity irks me, not bashing Clinton. I bashed Clinton all the time when he was in office. But he is yesterdays news. And I don't see how Clinton lying has anything at all to do with the recent claims out of Iraq.
You must really "irk" yourself. :lmao: And just because you don't see it as relevant doesn't mean that I can't see it as such. Must everything play to your way of thinking?

Originally posted by SmallTown
These are the posts I love. Short and sweet, just like the person posting it :love:

Ok, maybe that way laying it on a little thick. Still hoping she'll give me a ride in her cool car sometime :biggrin:

I don't need to spew a bunch of crap I just call it like I see it. :biggrin:

Originally posted by Ken King
"If" is not a justifier, it is a questioning clarifier, meaning that I challenge the accuracy of the information being reported and the relevancy of it.


You're right, "if" wasn't the justifier. It is what came after it. Basically heading off a future argument by saying even if it is true, it doesn't matter because...


Originally posted by Ken King

You must really "irk" yourself. :lmao: And just because you don't see it as relevant doesn't mean that I can't see it as such. Must everything play to your way of thinking?

A lot of people don't think it is relevant. If both parties spent more time worrying about their own agendas instead of the agenda of the other party, we would have a much more efficient government.

There is a difference. Clinton lied about having an affair, BIG WHOOP. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, Bin Laden, taxes, "compassionate conservatism", etc.

Still no WMD, no Bin Laden, no Saddam. Apparently the intelligence community couldn't even find Waldo. And Bush is making rumblings about Iran, claiming we have "indisputible" evidence from our intel community. Can't buy it anymore. He thinks the way to get votes is to go to war and increase the deficit.

If a dumb Texas hawk born with the silver spoon and no business ability isn't scarier to you than an Arkansas hound dog I think it's time to take a reality check regardless of party.

Originally posted by jlabsher
There is a difference. Clinton lied about having an affair, BIG WHOOP.

It's still lying. And it was PERJURY.

And on top of that, it was behavior unbecoming to the Office of the President of the United States. Clinton was a dangerous joke, and his legacy amounts to a wank stain on a blue dress.

I'm no fan of Bush. His domestic policy scares the crap out of me. But to suggest that Clinton was better, or even 'good by comparison' is ridiculous.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, Bin Laden, taxes, "compassionate conservatism", etc.


Claiming that Bush LIED about WMD is iffy at best. We KNOW that Hussein HAD them. The problem arose when he would not, or could not produce evidence that he destroyed them, or otherwise disposed of them.

Interesting aside: The same people who wanted to give Hans Blix more and more time, and indefinite inspection deadlines are the same people who want Bush to produce the same weapons NOW NOW NOW NOW!

As for bin Laden, taxes, and "compassionate conservatism", I'd be interested to know exactly what LIES were told about these items.

Originally posted by Toxick

Interesting aside: The same people who wanted to give Hans Blix more and more time, and indefinite inspection deadlines are the same people who want Bush to produce the same weapons NOW NOW NOW NOW!



Another interesting aside. The same people who wanted Blix to produce the WMD NOW (or proof there are gone) or fear being attacked, are the ones now saying we need more time.

Originally posted by SmallTown
Another interesting aside. The same people who wanted Blix to produce the WMD NOW (or proof there are gone) or fear being attacked, are the ones now saying we need more time.



I hadn't noticed that. :rolleyes:

For what it's worth - I don't think there are WMD. Bush and Co. should just butch up and admit it.


On that note, I'm still glad that we got Hussein out of there.

Originally posted by SmallTown
Another interesting aside. The same people who wanted Blix to produce the WMD NOW (or proof there are gone) or fear being attacked, are the ones now saying we need more time.

Who the heck was saying that? No one I know believed they were gone, and wouldn't have believed it had he said so. Further, we were all convinced he never would, because he was a bungling fool who didn't believe in his job, leaked too much information and was constrained by stupid rules. I think what conservatives wanted more than anything was for him to just get out of the way, shut up and let someone else in there.

FWIW - I think there are WMD's - but if we can't find them in our own back yard, I doubt we will in Iraq. We have had an unexploded nuclear weapon of the shore of Georgia, lost for fifty years, and no one knew it was there. Think we'll find some itty-bitty canisters of anthrax?

There are certainly WMD with Saddam's name on them. All the little bits and pieces are coming to light, for anyone who cares to read a paper. By themselves they don't mean anything (according to CNN) but added up as a whole, it's some pretty powerful evidence.

The reason we're not finding them in whole is because Bush waited too long. He publicly threated Hussein for weeks, if not months, giving him plenty of time to dismantle and disperse.

So you Bush-obsession people are right - it IS his fault that nothing's being found. But how any intelligent person can say that the ridding of Saddam Hussein isn't a good thing is beyond me.

But how any intelligent person can say that the ridding of Saddam Hussein isn't a good thing is beyond me.

:shrug:

They're just "special" Vrai.

Originally posted by jlabsher
There is a difference. Clinton lied about having an affair, BIG WHOOP. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam, Bin Laden, taxes, "compassionate conservatism", etc.
First, Clinton committed perjury, which is a fact. Second, exactly what has Bush lied about with regard to WMD? What has he lied about regarding Hussein? What lies are there about Bin Laden?
Still no WMD, no Bin Laden, no Saddam. Apparently the intelligence community couldn't even find Waldo. And Bush is making rumblings about Iran, claiming we have "indisputible" evidence from our intel community. Can't buy it anymore. He thinks the way to get votes is to go to war and increase the deficit.
Banned weapons have been found, chemical/biological warheads have been found, and the mobile labs are being found (at least two accounted for). It has been only a little over a month since anyone other than the UN has searched for these weapons and it has been even more recent that a dedicated group has been searching for them as their sole duty. Given the fact that Iraq had 12 plus years to hide the items in an area the size of California I believe that it is unrealistic to expect immediate results. BTW where were the WMD when Clinton lobbed the cruise missiles at Iraq that he claimed he was going after?
If a dumb Texas hawk born with the silver spoon and no business ability isn't scarier to you than an Arkansas hound dog I think it's time to take a reality check regardless of party.
No, a person thinking that they are above the law and will knowingly make false statements is a hell of a lot scarier.

Originally posted by Ken King
No, a person thinking that they are above the law and will knowingly make false statements is a hell of a lot scarier. Especially when that person is the President of the United States.

I suported the war on humanitarian ideas...I am a liberal internationalist, I feel that we have a vital interest to ensure that freedom is created throughout the world.

Still, there is little evidence that Hussein has any WMD, which are basically only nuckes. Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Joe Biden says that there is no possibility that Iraq had that capacity but Bush tried to scare us with a story of uranium that they never got.

Ok, look if there are WMD we should have found them by now. We no longer have guards that know we are coming. We have gone to all the places we thought had the WMD and guess what, there is nothing there. And if Hussein had them, why didn't he use them? From what I read during the time of the debate, the conservatives here said that the reason we could have WMD was because we would only use them in a severe emergency while Hussein was crazy and use them whenever. WMD was never a big issue for support of the war but it is a big issue when our president lies and exagerrates the threat that another nation poses just because not enough Americans or foreign nations are backing the administration.

The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it.

As for Clinton, what gives conservatives the right to ask him about his sexual relationships with women while he is on the stand?

"The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it."

C'mon Dems... I know you're not that dumb! They are all reporting on the same story, which was the original story issued by the BBC.

Originally posted by Bruzilla
"The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it."

C'mon Dems... I know you're not that dumb! They are all reporting on the same story, which was the original story issued by the BBC.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88470,00.html

Should be interesting to see what happens.

Originally posted by SmallTown
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88470,00.html

Should be interesting to see what happens.

ST, it doesn't matter what we say that brings Lynch's story into question. These conservatives are just going to whip out the patriotism card call you, me, Kucinich and any Democrat a pinko Commie and then yell about how "we should know better than that." After all, the whole thing came down to political affilation and had nothing to do with the principles that some Democrats hold.

Originally posted by demsformd
The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found.
Well THAT'S a relief! I, for one, am thrilled that that girl was never captured or tortured. Or do you just mean that her rescue was fabricated and she's still over there? Or does she even exist at all? Please clarify.

As for Clinton, what gives conservatives the right to ask him about his sexual relationships with women while he is on the stand? Apparently you've forgotten just exactly WHY he had to give a deposition in the first place.

It's people like you, Dems, that give lawyers a bad name. You have no concept of facts, no concept of history, you lie, you distort, you believe other lies and distortions, you have vendettas that skew your perceptions.

Then to top it all off, you claim to be an advocate of women's rights, yet you can't even remember WHY Clinton had to raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth in the first place. It's frightening, it really is.

Why can't Republicans get past Clinton? Because people like you still worship the ground that criminal walks on, that's why.

And not only that, but you're a LAWYER saying it's okay for someone to commit perjury!

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's people like you, Dems, that give lawyers a bad name. You have no concept of facts, no concept of history, you lie, you distort, you believe other lies and distortions, you have vendettas that skew your perceptions.

Then to top it all off, you claim to be an advocate of women's rights, yet you can't even remember WHY Clinton had to raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth in the first place. It's frightening, it really is.

Do you know what vrai, whenever someone disagrees with you, you immediately say that they distorted the truth and go on your rant like you did here. My dear lady, I have a different opinion than yours. I come to it from my view of things while you come to it from yours. Whenever you say something that I do not like, I do not rant and rave about how you lie, distort the truth, have no concept for this or that. Instead I provide my reasoning. You can choose to disagree with it but to go on and rant like you did just shows the lack of substance and profound thought on your part.

You know what, I am damn proud to be a lawyer. It has done great things for me in my life and the lives of others. If vrai we have such a bad name why don't you get off your back side, go to school for an extra three years, pass the bar, and then practice the way that you think that lawyers should? Do something about us being so bad rather than just sitting on the sideline and criticizing like a Monday Morning Quarterback. Make a difference yourself rather than saying how I or any other lawyer gives us all a bad name.

As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation. Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him.

Originally posted by demsformd


As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation.


Yeah? Name some. Name recent ones. Heck tell me about ancient ones.

Another thing - you don't make something right, because other people do it. Why does anyone think this is a defense? It doesn't work for children - "but mommy, all the other kids do it" - why does it work, in your mind, for you? You think it's gonna make me EXCUSE this kind of behavior, because someone ELSE did it TOO?



Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him.

Yeah THAT makes sense. People hated him, because other people loved him. Keep practicing law, because you're a lousy sociologist.

Originally posted by demsformd
Still, there is little evidence that Hussein has any WMD, which are basically only nuckes.

Which defintion of WMD are you using? I was under the impression that WMD include things like Bio-Weapons, and Chemical Weapons as well. Anything that has no discernable radius and kills indiscriminately.

For example, a daisy-cutter bomb, although very fcking destructive would not qualify, because you can draw a big circle around the blast radius beyond which no destruction will occur.

A nice vial of E-Bola, however, does qualify, because it could spread very rapidly, and knows no boundaries.

Undefined destructive force.

Originally posted by demsformd
And if Hussein had them, why didn't he use them?

A more interesting question is, "why didn't he produce evidence that he disappeared the ones we KNEW he had." Knowing that doing so would have postponed the war at least, and possibly completely avoided it altogether.

As for not using them, if Hussein was killed or knocked out of power on the first day of bombing (which is still within the realm of possibility) perhaps the ability to use them died with him.


Originally posted by demsformd
The story of Lynch was a complete fabrication according to every mainstream American media outlet I have found. It is no longer the BBC that only says it.

I've heard very little of this story. I'll withhold comment until I know more about it. :bubble:


Originally posted by demsformd
As for Clinton, what gives conservatives the right to ask him about his sexual relationships with women while he is on the stand?

Because if Clinton got a hummer, then I want to know about it.

Because then he would have done at least ONE thing that I could respect :biggrin:

Dems, it can be "your opinion" that perjury isn't a crime but that doesn't make it so. For someone who claims to be a lawyer, you sure don't know much about the law.
you immediately say that they distorted the truth and go on your rant like you did here. There's a lie.
Instead I provide my reasoning. There's another one.
But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation. There's a major distortion.

Want me to go back and find the post where you said you were black?

And you still haven't explained how everything about the Lynch rescue was a "complete fabrication", which is what I thought was the topic of this thread. So much for your "logic" and "reasoning".

Originally posted by vraiblonde


Want me to go back and find the post where you said you were black?
Play the ace instead. :biggrin:

What it all comes down to is that the military was going into an area that was still technically under enemy control. They knew that Lynch was in the hospital. They knew where she was and they know, for the last information from the lawyer, that there was at least one intellegence officer outside the room she was in. what they did not know:

Where there any hostile forces around the hospital.
where the other prisoners in the same facility or had they been moved further north.
What kind of resistance was expected at the Hospital from enemy forces that my possibly still be there.

These three reasons would be taken into account when planning for this operation. You simply cannot land a helo in a hospital compound, walk over to the people living next to the hospital and ask if the soldiers are still there and then if they aren't go into the hospital without using force. The assumptions in the planning of this operation was that there was reasonable expectations that hostile forces were in the hospital or immediate area. With that in mind they used all the elements they are trained to use to pull off a successful operation of this sort.

Surprise
Overwhelming power and
Speed

They may not have needed it, but I would rather they used it and found it was not neccessary than not used and found they needed to plan another rescue mission with those elements.

They did the right thing.

Second, the weapons of Mass Destruction. The definition given here on this thread was "Anything that has no discernable radius and kills indiscriminately." Let's stick to that definition.

Saddam had absolute access to Iraq (Northern Iraq was not accessible in the last few years) consequently he had no discernable radius in where he could operate within Iraq.
Saddam proved over the last 30+ years that he was willing and did kill indiscriminately.

To me this makes Saddam a weapon of mass destruction. Maybe Bush exagerated the intellegence he received to accomplish the goal of getting rid of Saddam. Fine by me.

In any case the truth of the matter is that the US shared it's intellegence with France. France had been passing information onto Saddam up to a couple of days AFTER the fighting had started. Any intellegence that was valid before the war was invalid within days. The CAI had a mole working for Iraq and anything that the French were not giving them they were receiving from the CIA making the information from France nothing more that a verifying source in most cases. The search had to start from the beginning when the war started because of this. It will take a long time to complete the search.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation.
There's a major distortion.
Vrai, don't be so naive to believe that these things were not going on since Washington was President. Washington was known for keeping his black slave mistress while in office. Jefferson also. Grover Cleveland actually fathered an illegitamate child while in office with his mistress. FDR had affairs with several of his nurses. Eisenhower kept his female aid from his military career when he took office and it was common knowledge that he was having an affair with her. JFK, well his affairs were common knowledge also. All of the presidents if you looked back of their time in office had done these types of things. What has changed now is that the press realized with the watergate scandal that the press had the abaility to impeach a president and make the reportes legendary. Now the prevailing attitude of the press is that they want that legacy of being the one reporter who impeached a president.

ThayerP,

I believe that Vraiblonde was speaking towards Clinton's legal actions regarding sexual harassment and not the fact that many Presidents have been getting "perks" while in office.

Originally posted by Sharon
Play the ace instead. I'm saving it. :biggrin:

You know now that I think about it I would much rather there be a false alarm than another 9-11.

Now as far as North Korea goes they have already claimed to possess and have threatened to use nuclear weapons on us....but we know they are and have been big blow hearts for years....what do we do about that.....what if we knew they actually wanted to start a nuclear war.....what if we know they want money so badly they sell them to places like Chechnya, the Palistinian Authority, etc.

I don't look at the Lynch affair from a political viewpoint, but from a military one. The allegations made by the BBC are rediculous, and, Dems, I noticed you couldn't provide me with the name of the military official who made all those claims to the media.:biggrin: If anyone is to blame in this whole mess, it's the reporters who didn't bother to verify their facts before filing their stories.

Where I woudl fault Dems is that he's willing to forgo any semblance of objectivity in his quest to slam Bush.

Originally posted by Ken King
ThayerP,

I believe that Vraiblonde was speaking towards Clinton's legal actions regarding sexual harassment and not the fact that many Presidents have been getting "perks" while in office.
Ken, the point is that all the other pressidents had ddone the same kinds of things that Clinton did and it was never brought up by the press because it was a taboo subject. The taboo seems to have been lifted on publicity in regards to the presidents personal life after the Watergate scandal hit and the media realized they actually posses an intrinsic power of impeachment.

As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation. Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him. [/B][/QUOTE]

Clinton was the target of disgust, not hatred, because he was caught in a lie and refused to own up to his actions. Had nothing to do with right wing, moderate or anything else political. He's a sleeze ball, plain and simple.

Ken, the point is that all the other pressidents had ddone the same kinds of things that Clinton did and it was never brought up by the press because it was a taboo subject. Thayer, I would LOVE for you to name another President, besides Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton, that sent the Secret Service on booty-call.

Did Reagan do it? How about Bush I? Nixon? Eisenhower? Look at the common denominator - what do all the sexual harrassers have in common? And what do the non-harrassers have in common?

And before you say, "Eisenhower had a mistress", please take a look at the difference between Monica Lewinsky, et al, and Kay Summersby.

I for one would have had more respect for him if he said "Yeah, I did the nasty with her, so what mind your own beeswax" instead of weaseling his way out of it.

Seems that sleaze ball and politician have been pretty much the same thing since time immemorial.

Originally posted by jlabsher
Seems that sleaze ball and politician have been pretty much the same thing since time immemorial. No, sweetie. Just since 1992. You may not agree with Reagan or the Bushes, but "sleazy" is hardly an adjective you'd use to describe them.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Thayer, I would LOVE for you to name another President, besides Kennedy, LBJ and Clinton, that sent the Secret Service on booty-call.

Did Reagan do it? How about Bush I? Nixon? Eisenhower? Look at the common denominator - what do all the sexual harrassers have in common? And what do the non-harrassers have in common?

And before you say, "Eisenhower had a mistress", please take a look at the difference between Monica Lewinsky, et al, and Kay Summersby.
Nobody will know the full details of most presidential administrations. The only reason Clinton got caught was because he was stupid and allowed the press more freedom in what they were allowed to report. His administration was already under heavy scrutiny because of Hilary and her problems in Arkansas. They were already under heavy scrutiny because of the campaign financing issues that had been raised. He could not have picked a worse time to do something like he did.

As for the secret service being sent out on booty calls, they may not have used the term then, but Grover cleavland was known for doing just that. Andrew Jackson, not only did that but also had them go out for booze supplies when he was having his famous knock-down drag-out parties while he was in office that typically ended with him and his guests passed out drunk with their companions. At that time it was accepted.

As for Eisenhower and Kay Summersby, I see no difference between an affair such as Clinton had and the relationship between Dwight and Kay except that the white house press was gagged better during the Eisenhower era.

I have to disagree with you Vrai. I would bet that the majority of presidents back through Washington were probably getting some on the side. I know if I were President I would be getting some. :biggrin:

Clinton's problem was he took things in this regard to extremes. If a woman throws herself at you, go for it. But having government agents bringing girls to your room, and government employees to boot, was a bad, bad, idea. That opened the door to further inspection and led to the Lewinsky problems.

I agree with jlabsher... he should have just told the media to f-off. It wasn't like the Dems were going to abandon him, or Hillary was going to leave him, if he had admitted to everything.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
No, sweetie. Just since 1992. You may not agree with Reagan or the Bushes, but "sleazy" is hardly an adjective you'd use to describe them.
So you don't think that:

Nixon was sleezy for lying to congress?
JFK was sleezy for having Marilyn Monroe to the WH and having an affair with her?
JFK was sleezy for hiring a 19 yr old sweetie with no experience who was with him everywhere he went?
Grover Cleveland was sleezy for allowing his mistress to live with him in the WH and even have a baby there out of wedlock while they were there?
Andrew Jackson was sleezy for having all out drunken parties with women that were brought in for them to enjoy?
That Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were sleezy for keeping their mistresses in the WH for their pleasure?

Your right, nobody can make a blanket statement about ALL of anything because using the word ALL just puts you behind the eightball in trying to prove that ALL. However, the point was that Clinton was not the ONLY president to do something like this and probably will not be the last. Other presidents in history did much worse than him, but it was not public knowledge because the press saw these things as taboo in reporting the news.

Yep I still hate liberals....:hohum:

Originally posted by Bruzilla
I have to disagree with you Vrai. I would bet that the majority of presidents back through Washington were probably getting some on the side. I know if I were President I would be getting some. :biggrin:

Clinton's problem was he took things in this regard to extremes. If a woman throws herself at you, go for it. But having government agents bringing girls to your room, and government employees to boot, was a bad, bad, idea. That opened the door to further inspection and led to the Lewinsky problems.

I agree with jlabsher... he should have just told the media to f-off. It wasn't like the Dems were going to abandon him, or Hillary was going to leave him, if he had admitted to everything.
It’s my belief that only a handful of people would have had a problem with Clinton if he had just told the truth in the legal proceedings against him. It doesn't matter to me, or many that I know, that sex was the subject. What mattered was that the Chief Executive, responsible for execution of the laws of our land, would have the audacity to lie before a court while under oath.

Originally posted by ThayerP
So you don't think that:

Nixon was sleezy for lying to congress?
JFK was sleezy for having Marilyn Monroe to the WH and having an affair with her?
JFK was sleezy for hiring a 19 yr old sweetie with no experience who was with him everywhere he went?
Grover Cleveland was sleezy for allowing his mistress to live with him in the WH and even have a baby there out of wedlock while they were there?
Andrew Jackson was sleezy for having all out drunken parties with women that were brought in for them to enjoy?
That Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were sleezy for keeping their mistresses in the WH for their pleasure?

Your right, nobody can make a blanket statement about ALL of anything because using the word ALL just puts you behind the eightball in trying to prove that ALL. However, the point was that Clinton was not the ONLY president to do something like this and probably will not be the last. Other presidents in history did much worse than him, but it was not public knowledge because the press saw these things as taboo in reporting the news.

Your right, but Clinton was the first one in the modern age of "visable politics" which began in the 70's with Nixon. He resigned, Clinton didn't. If Kennedy (42 years ago), Grover Cleveland (106 years ago), Andrew Jackson (166 years ago), George Washington (206 years ago), Or Thomas Jefferson (194 years ago) were to be subject to the social climate and media surveilance of today, history might not be too kind to them. I would think that all of those men would have made different choices if they were in office today.

Basic fact is the times have changed. He did something bad, made it wirse by lying about it (a concept my 6 year old has down pat). Did it warrant impeachment, that is arguable.

Originally posted by Ken King
It’s my belief that only a handful of people would have had a problem with Clinton if he had just told the truth in the legal proceedings against him. It doesn't matter to me, or many that I know, that sex was the subject. What mattered was that the Chief Executive, responsible for execution of the laws of our land, would have the audacity to lie before a court while under oath.
I agree on this point. But I am willing to bet it was his advisors who told him to lie because it would put him in a position where he would have been impeached. As it was his advisors had him stretch the process out to a point where he lasted his whole term and now what people think of him really doesn't matter. He's not in office anymore.

Similar to Nixon, he was one of the greatest experts on foriegn policy we have ever seen in the presidency, but his advisors got him in deep trouble and he didn't handle it properly. He did have to resign because the pressure on him and the distinct possibility that he would be impeached.

The president is only as good as his advisors make him.

I don't really think Regan or Bush I was capable of a booty call so that is probably a non issue.

Man, the unsupported BS thats posted here as fact is incredible. It's no wonder Clinton lied, his supporters couldn't tell the truth if it bit them in the azz !

I agree on this point. But I am willing to bet it was his advisors who told him to lie because it would put him in a position where he would have been impeached. As it was his advisors had him stretch the process out to a point where he lasted his whole term and now what people think of him really doesn't matter. He's not in office anymore.

Therapy?

..episode of "History: What we wish it were" goes to far...may I recite the list, AGAIN, as to why Clinton was so small?

White water
McDougals
Tucker
Hubbel
Rose
Lippo
Charlie Trie
Johhny Chung
FBI files
Billy Dale
Utah land grab (low sulfer coal)
75 foreign nationals blowing town under the 5th
Loral and the PRC (missile guidance)
Jaunita
Fund raising scandals
Brodderick
Wiley
Waco
Elian

...what else...???

Oh yeah...

The first World Trade Center Attack
The Embassy attacks
The USS Cole
letting Osama go
reducing the US Military by some 400,000 warm bodies (remember "re-inventing government"???

...the most ethical administration in History?

...can't forget Mark Rich and all the other lovely displays of the last day...

Haitti
Bosnia
Rawanda
Iraq
North Korea
... ... ...

"It was just sex!"

So what you're saying, Thayer, is that Clinton was merely a puppet of Carville and Stephanopolous? So in fact, he wasn't President at all, Jim and George were? Or maybe it was Hillary?

Interesting. And way to shift the blame - worthy of the big man himself.

Forget it, Larry. These nuts don't want to address these issues - they only want to talk about sex. You keep putting the laundry list out there and not one single time has one of the Clinton supporters come back with anything other than "You're just mad about sex."

Originally posted by Larry Gude
..episode of "History: What we wish it were" goes to far...may I recite the list, AGAIN, as to why Clinton was so small?

White water
McDougals
Tucker
Hubbel
Rose
Lippo
Charlie Trie
Johhny Chung
FBI files
Billy Dale
Utah land grab (low sulfer coal)
75 foreign nationals blowing town under the 5th
Loral and the PRC (missile guidance)
Jaunita
Fund raising scandals
Brodderick
Wiley
Waco
Elian

...what else...???

Oh yeah...

The first World Trade Center Attack
The Embassy attacks
The USS Cole
letting Osama go
reducing the US Military by some 400,000 warm bodies (remember "re-inventing government"???

...the most ethical administration in History?

...can't forget Mark Rich and all the other lovely displays of the last day...

Haitti
Bosnia
Rawanda
Iraq
North Korea
... ... ...

"It was just sex!"
I understand all those things and I think they were wrong. BUT the discussion I was talking to was the statement you made in regard to the problems he created in his Personal life and how it spilled over to his political life.

As for Clinton, the man did terrible things to women in his personal life especially his own family. But dear god so did almost every other goddamn president that has ever graced this nation. Clinton was the target of right wing hatred because he was moderate and people loved him.

This doesn't bring into question what you listed.

I am not defending Clinton and saying he was the greatest president in modern times. I personaly think he was the worst president in modern times.

The thing to remember about the office of the President is that it is a an upper-level management position that requires the occupier to rely on his mid and lower -level managers to provide input to him for the decision making process. If the mid and lower-level managers are bad then the president will make bad decisions. The President still makes the decisions and is responsible for those decisions. Clinton picked a poorly qualified and shady bunch in his mid and lower-level managers and paid the price.

...did I say that???

the discussion I was talking to was the statement you made in regard to the problems he created in his Personal life and how it spilled over to his political life.

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...did I say that???
Not you, Larry. Vrai.

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...can't forget Mark Rich and all the other lovely displays of the last day...


That leads to the question Bawa should ask Hillary...How would you explain the New Square, NY Hasidic group voted something like 1500-4 in favor of Hillary in the senate race while 2 neighoring Hasidic groups voted for Lazio in a landslide?? Might it have something to do with a pardon of 4 scam artists, convicted and sentenced in 1999, that bilked the US govt of 40 million dollars in Pell grants for fictitious students???

is a an upper-level management position that requires the occupier to rely on his mid and lower -level managers to provide input to him for the decision making process. If the mid and lower-level managers are bad then the president will make bad decisions. The President still makes the decisions and is responsible for those decisions. Clinton picked a poorly qualified and shady bunch in his mid and lower-level managers and paid the price.

...in that HE chose poorly, but, that is a leadership skill. Also, everything I ever read about Clinton is that he is a terrible micro manager, constantly imersing himself in the details and interfering with people doing their job.

These things go hand in hand; inability to delegate because you don't trust your own judgement BECAUSE you have poor judgement.

Clinton the President is a tribute to American ideas that ANYBODY can succeed in this counrty. Clinton the person is a reminder that that "doing" and "being" something are very different.

Anyone can BE President.

Not everyone can DO President.

And the choice is ours. My objections arise when people try to change the facts. The truth is often rather important.

...just give it a one or two word descriptive name and add it to the list!

Hebrew-gate?

I remember that. And the NYC Peurto Rican gang pardons/TWA 800 coincidences as well.

Originally posted by Larry Gude


Not everyone can DO the President.



Bill would argue against that :biggrin: :roflmao: :roflmao:

..reliable!

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...in that HE chose poorly, but, that is a leadership skill. Also, everything I ever read about Clinton is that he is a terrible micro manager, constantly imersing himself in the details and interfering with people doing their job.

These things go hand in hand; inability to delegate because you don't trust your own judgement BECAUSE you have poor judgement.

Clinton the President is a tribute to American ideas that ANYBODY can succeed in this counrty. Clinton the person is a reminder that that "doing" and "being" something are very different.

Anyone can BE President.

Not everyone can DO President.

And the choice is ours. My objections arise when people try to change the facts. The truth is often rather important.
In my experience micro-management of anything just leads to trouble. And your right it comes out of an insecurity in the managers ability to select people that are to be rhis reports properly.

In todays world being elected to the presidency is nothing more than having a good PR team and a magnetic personality. After election is where the problems usually start and the persons inability to be a good manager shows up. Unfortunately, by then it's too late for a four year period.

You hit it on the head. Anybody can BE President. Not Everyone can DO President.

In todays world being elected to the presidency is nothing more than having a good PR team and a magnetic personality. After election is where the problems usually start and the persons inability to be a good manager shows up.

For all we know, the average Joe, Gore IS magnetic and it just doesn't convey on TV while W conveys "great guy" and may be actually "wooden," right?

Inability to manage isn't a big deal in and of itself. Bill could have GOTTEN a good or great manager. It seems inherent that if you operate the way I think they (the Clintons) did/do operate (abnormally dishonestly) then you CAN'T delegate. I think Vince Foster got caught up in all this, saw disaster coming for his friends and guilt and depression just pushed him over the edge.

In any event, we, the people, bought the goods and would have likely elected him again if it were possible. I couldn't beleive it the first time. The second was shear fantasy. Not sure I can comprehend a third term.

That's why the facts matter so.

Originally posted by ThayerP
But I am willing to bet it was his advisors who told him to lie because it would put him in a position where he would have been impeached. As it was his advisors had him stretch the process out to a point where he lasted his whole term and now what people think of him really doesn't matter. He's not in office anymore.
I don't buy that. According to everyone I have heard talk or write about the Clinton sexcapade none of them knew that he would provide false testimony. For crying out loud he was a lawyer and should have known that by doing so he was breaking the law. He didn't need an advisor to tell him that.

One of the (few) things I respect about Bush is that he acknowledged his weaknesses and got in people to make up for them. If Clinton had done that, instead of this pathological "alpha male" syndrome he had going on, that would be one less thing for me to criticize.

Back to the subject: In checking back over stories about the Lynch rescue, if any lying or embellishment was done, it appears to have been done by the media, not Bush or anyone in the Bush Administration.

So, once again, I'd like Dems to explain just exactly WHAT Bush lied about, regarding Jessica Lynch.

...is Bush a lawyer?

My research shows he is not.

Ken?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...is Bush a lawyer?

My research shows he is not.

Ken?
No JD just a MBA

Actually, I'm still on the "everybody else did it" thing. I found it amusing that every person named as acting inappropriately in the WH were all Democrats.

But I'm still of the type that holds the Founding Fathers in extremely high regard, especially in lieu of all of the recent biographies recently written about them. They were extraordinary men, the likes of which the modern era still hasn't seen.

And I'm always hearing half-baked rumors about some of them that are uncorroborated by anything. Heck, some of them I've heard were outright lies (one was that Lincoln owned slaves - just imagine - the guy who rose to political office as a life-long abolitionist - positively ridiculous). Do we just hear some scurrilous rumor, and believe it? NO body would believe that someone like Reagan was running around in office - why would we believe that Washington did?

Can anyone point to a single source that says that some of these men did these things? I'm not convinced. I'm certainly not convinced by the argument "well *I* would have done it, then". Those were dangerous times, then - men killed each other in duels, and fought on the floor of Congress. With a nation almost always in peril, it's hard to believe some of these men, in the beginning, were all a bunch of lying scoundrels.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
So, once again, I'd like Dems to explain just exactly WHAT Bush lied about, regarding Jessica Lynch.

http://www.flying-pigs.co.nz/pigflyzone.jpg

Originally posted by Ken King
No JD just a MBA
That would explain why Bush is a better manager than Clinton was.

Originally posted by pixiegirl
Yep I still hate liberals....:hohum:

I love conservative chics.:love:

Originally posted by dpete2q
I love conservative chics.:love:

I'm only conservative regarding politics. :wink:

Originally posted by pixiegirl
I'm only conservative regarding politics. :wink:

I kinda figured that.

Originally posted by ThayerP
That Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were sleezy for keeping their mistresses in the WH for their pleasure?


George Washington never lived in the WH. (yeah, I know :offtopic: )

Originally posted by cmcdanal
George Washington never lived in the WH. (yeah, I know :offtopic: )
I put that in there...It's funny because I was thinking while typing that message that I cannot say in the WH because they were not living there. I must have thought about it too much. :frown: