Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

[Ken King]

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.

 

[SmallTown]

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.

 

[SmallTown]

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?

 

[Ken King]

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.

 

[SmallTown]

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.

 

[pixiegirl]

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.

 

[SmallTown]

Re: Re: Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

Originally posted by pixiegirl
I hate liberals.

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

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

 

[Ken King]

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. 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?

 

[pixiegirl]

Re: Re: Re: Jessica Lynch and other Bush lies

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

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

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

 

[SmallTown]

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. 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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Toxick]

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.

 

[SmallTown]

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.

 

[Toxick]

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.

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.

 

[SamSpade]

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.

 

[SamSpade]

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?

 

[vraiblonde]

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.

 

[pixiegirl]

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.

 

[Ken King]

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.

 

[vraiblonde]

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.