I don't get the whole two-party system thing. You end up having to simply pick who you dislike least...
Oh... and as to the whole lying thing, would these constitute a lies:
"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." President Bush, September, 2002.
According to the IAEA, no such report with this claim was made. Pertinent reports include however:
"Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." IAEA report as of 1998.
"confirmed the validity of the Agency’s technically coherent picture of Iraq’s past clandestine nuclear programme and nuclear related capabilities as of December 1998." IAEA Annual Report 2001.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” President Bush, March 17, 2003 (from official White House transcript).
“We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq used the period since 1998 to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs.” CIA report, February 2003.
“The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program … The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” President Bush, State of the Union Address, January 2003.
“The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa.” Washington Post, July 23, 2003.
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” President Bush, State of Union Address, January 28, 2003.
“INR (US State Dept Bureau of Intelligence and Research) is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors…the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program.” National Intelligence Estimate, October 2002.
“In 1995 … the head of Iraq's military industries [Hussein Kamal] defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents.” President Bush October 7, 2002
The transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by the inspectors and the IAEA indicates he said the opposite. After the Gulf War, he told the UN, “Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them.”
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. And we'll find more as we go along. But for now, those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.” President Bush, May 31, 2003.
"Engineering experts from the Defense Intelligence Agency have come to believe that the most likely use for two mysterious trailers found in Iraq was to produce hydrogen for weather balloons rather than to make biological weapons, government officials say.
The classified findings by a majority of the engineering experts differ from the view put forward in a white paper made public on May 28 by the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which said that the trailers were ["likely used"] for making biological weapons....
The State Department's intelligence branch, which was not invited to take part in the initial review, disputed the findings in a memorandum on June 2. The fact that American and British intelligence analysts with direct access to the evidence were disputing the claims included in the C.I.A. white paper was first reported in June, along with the analysts' concern that the evaluation of the mobile units had been marred by a rush to judgment." New York Times, August 8, 2003.
Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes Clinton was IMPEACHED...yet still was able to conduct business as usual....sad, sad, sad.....I guess IMPEACHED has change it meaning.
wtf are you talking about?
im·peach - To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
which is exactly what happened.
Originally posted by PVSHe should of resigned, but has no clue of what self respect is......His behavior was questionable and his pardons....like impeachment means nothing....the man has no self respect IMO.
wtf are you talking about?im·peach - To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
which is exactly what happened.
Originally posted by debbiejo
He should of resigned, but has no clue of what self respect is......His behavior was questionable and his pardons....like impeachment means nothing....the man has no self respect IMO.
Who needs self respect when he can go overseas and do speech's for 200k a pop.......I would eat some pride to eat more caviar with that kinda lecture fee🙂
so tell me, how does the double standard work in bush's favor?
i know it must somehow, but please enighten me.
how are his lies which lead us into iraq seen as morally straight behavior?
the taliban continues to gain strenght in afghanistan and osama bin ladin is
still alive and well. the people who organised the attacks on u.s. soil have gotten away with it, and though there was no ties between iraq and al quaida...now there is because of his actions...but somehow we are 'winning the war on terror'. how is it that he is not obligated to resign? because his crimes did not involve lying about what he did with his penis? is that it?
first off morality and war hmm whats moral about it? I can only spout off what media allows to come to press when they have large political interest groups from disclosing everything.........
I am not justifying his behaviour its not my job. Here is a good question though does anyone really believe that this "war on terror" is done through one presidents ter/terms in presidency. Most decisions are round table discussions we will never hear with more then just the current presidents cabinet listening (ie previous presidents and affluent political figures)
Re: Left v. Right vs. Common Sense
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Back when Clinton lied about nailing Monica my opinon of it was that it was lame that he lied about it and kept on standing behind that lie until he was proven wrong. I deeply believed it called his character into question.When I said that many people cursed at me calling me a republican/ conservative sympathiser.
Nowadays I rail about Bush and his lies (which are definately worse in my opinon but that is not the issue right now) and the right curses me for being a democratic sympathizing lefty.
At what point do members of either party take responsibility, or acknowledge, for their leader or members' irresponsible or deviant actions instead of making excuses and attacking any one who's either just paying attention or trying to respond with common sense?
Because rarely are the American people happy with their President.
And it's always been republican vs democrat in US politics.
And as long as the American people continue to elect men that come from moneyed backgrounds odds are that there will be a large amounts of deceit at the presidential level.
You know, everyone talks about honor and integrity when it comes time to describe the presidency. **** that! In this country honor means not getting caught, and it means you might have gotten caught, but as long as you get away with it, everything is okay.
A lot of people talk about Clinton getting impeached, and he should have resigned and on and on. But, why resign? What reason do you have to think he should have resigned?
Why should we trust any of our leaders? Trust can be a far too comfortable place...
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know, everyone talks about honor and integrity when it comes time to describe the presidency. **** that! In this country honor means not getting caught, and it means you might have gotten caught, but as long as you get away with it, everything is okay.A lot of people talk about Clinton getting impeached, and he should have resigned and on and on. But, why resign? What reason do you have to think he should have resigned?
Why should we trust any of our leaders? Trust can be a far too comfortable place...
Are you just giving up? Let the bad be bad?
It would be great if we could get smart, honest people into positions like the president, but politics is so nasty and mean that good people don’t make it. The only thing that rises to the top is scum.
Originally posted by Capt_FantasticBecause Nixon set the standard.... 😂
You know, everyone talks about honor and integrity when it comes time to describe the presidency. **** that! In this country honor means not getting caught, and it means you might have gotten caught, but as long as you get away with it, everything is okay.For me integrety = respect in my eyes.....and sorry, I have no respect for much this country is running on now....
A lot of people talk about Clinton getting impeached, and he should have resigned and on and on. But, why resign? What reason do you have to think he should have resigned?
Why should we trust any of our leaders? Trust can be a far too comfortable place...
Besides for me it's too bad that the "got caught" is a matter....Nixon only got caught for what they always and were always doing.............
It's just an integrity thing that seem to be missing everywhere...Integrity = respect in my eyes....and my eyes haven't seen much of it as of late.
These days there's little difference between the tow major parties. They may differ on a few social issues, abortion, gun control, but they are both firmly in the camp of free trade/big business on economic issues. Nader was right during the last election when he said "both major parties are whores for corporate America".