Originally Posted by cbwm

So its a agreed. Bush may be our greatest president yet! Its a shame he cant run for another term

You wanna bet if he runs again, he'll win??????????????????
There are still 60% of morons in U.S. who likes him and believes that he is THE GREATEST



fastreplies

And for good reason.

1) Prevented the recession left us by the crash of the bogus Internet Boom, created during the Clinton era and accellerated by 9-11 and Al Gore's inability to concede defeat

2) Got North Korea to drop their weapons program developed under Clintons watch.

3) Got Lybia to play nice after many years of training terrorists

4) Conquered Afghanistan in a few short months, something Russia couldnt do over many years

5) Appointed more minorities in his cabinet than any president prior

6) Creator of the "Bush Doctrine", a policy of pre-emption that undoubtedly will be the playbook used by most countries once europe suffers a real terrorist attack by WMD.

7) Appointed two justices to the supreme court, including the chief justice during his term in office.


Also, if I am interpeting the news I'm hearing, he also just negotiated a sweetheart deal for the U.S. to pump oil from Iraq in exchange for continued troop support.


Whats not to like

Wow cbwm, talk about seeing through rose colored glasses.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

My god, republicans have the worst collective case of obsessive compulsive disorder I've ever heard of. Most of the people responding to this thread weren't alive during Chappaquadic, and yet this is the one and it would seem only thing members of the republican party are able to remember. Let's see if we can't jog our memories, now that the issue has been brought up. And brought up only because apparently there's nothing of substance that can be used to smear the democrats, save for an almost 50 year old car accident.

• Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man in the face while illegally hunting. The elderly lawyer Mr Cheney mistook for a small bird apologized for being shot. Cheney never once visited the man in hospital.

It's called a hunting accident? I believe it happens, oh... All the time?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Mark Foley abused his position as a republican congressman (er, he was a democrat if you watch Fox) to sexually harass underage boys. You would be rotting in jail "on suspicion" but Mr Foley has not been charged with any crime.

Investigations are still taking place, that's why he hasn't been charged yet. And considering the amount of terrible things democrat's have done in the past (Ted Kennedy, Clinton Lewinsky, The Clinton Murders, etc) I beg you do not make the hasty generalization that the entire Republican party has the faults Mr. Foley suffers from.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• George W Bush lied to America, dragging us into a war of choice over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "lie" as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive."

Did President Bush have intent to deceive? I don't believe he did.

One possible theory (Presented by CNN in the form of a documentory), is that a supposedly defected scientist employed by Hussein lied to German intelligence, claiming that he had witnessed the development of a biological program had witnessed an "accident" in which several people had been exposed and died. Germany informed the U.S. about this, and that's when we started really pursuing the matter.

Others believe that the weapons were moved to Syria. Personally I think this might actually be the truth. Iraq delayed inspections by the U.N. for more then enough time to move the weapons.

Whichever theory is true, the fact is satellite photographs were taken of mobile weapons stations, and the rest as they say, is history.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• George W Bush continues lieing to America, trying to drag us into a war of choice over Iran's weapons program which was halted in 2003.

Was it halted? How do you know that? Because CNN said so?

As our President said in a recent speech, if Iran had the knowledge to build these weapons in 2003, they have the knowledge to build them now!

'The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran "intends to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame."'

That's from WikiPedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...ss_destruction

And because WikiPedia is not always accurate, read the NIE yourself:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

'The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions against Iran, because Iran refuses to suspend its nuclear enrichment.'

What exactly do you think they're enriching uranium for? Iran says it's for peaceful purposes. Uh huh, that's why the UN has "imposed sanctions" against them.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Larry Craig was arrested for soliciting sex in a men's bathroom at an airport. A particular bathroom known as a cruising grounds for this type of sex.

Again, when one senator and one congressman have sexual misconduct you cannot judge the entire party!

Is it worse for a congressman or a president to do this? Why do you still like Clinton? Were his deeds less appalling?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned in shame, in the hopes that by putting his tail between his legs and running home he'll avoid being prosecuted for obstruction of justice.

Sorry buddy, but that's not true either. None of the stupid charges against him were ever proved.

I think he was just sick of being blamed for everything, when none of it was his fault.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Director of Public Affairs Monica Goodling, a GWB appointee, admits to having broken the law.

I've never heard of this before?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Bush tries to put his personal lawyer, Harriet Myers, on the United States Supreme Court. Honest to goodness conservatives are still smarting over that one.

So what's wrong with the President of the United States trying to appoint a women he trusts - and who he knows is honest - to a position that requires such virtues? Would it be better for President Bush to pick someone off the street?

And in case you don't know, all presidents appoint someone they trust to the Supreme Court when they have the opportunity.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• The head of America's Consumer Product Safety Commission refused additional funding and manpower (probably the first time any beauro has ever done anything like this) while more tainted products arrive on our shores. The same has been on countless trips paid for by those they regulate. See the definition of cronyism.

There are always problems like this in any country. Like you said, the country is struggling financially right now.

If "additional funding and manpower" were refused, it's because there's a good reason! (Like not having funding or manpower...)

No matter whether the country is democrat or republican controller, there will always be frustrating issues like this.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Bush and Condoleezza Rice, asleep at the wheel on 9/11. Any non-sham institution would have fired such a bumblingly incompetent security director following the attacks, let alone her failure to read the memo about bin Laden being determined to attack the US using hijacked aircraft. (War President? My Pet Goat!)

September 11th, was the direct result of a series of failures that started long before George Bush took office.

Do your own research before posting, and stop copying what other people have said.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Hurricane Katrina. Even pretending the incompetence, the profound lack of security in America, the racism, Bush felt this was a great opportunity to lie about what he knew and when he knew it, because the man who vowed to restore dignity to the white house really enjoys lieing. Reference Jan 20, 2001 through Present.

The "incompetence", "profound lack of security", and "racism" had abolutely nothing to do with President Bush! Man you hate him

The city of New Orleans brought this disaster upon themselves, through their own "incompetence", "profound lack of security", and "racism".

If you actually understood how the country worked, you wouldn't have said what you just did.

You see, the GOVERNMENT that President Bush is a part of is NOT RESPONSIBLE for what happened there. The LOCAL GOVERNMENT is! Do you understand the difference? Because it's huge.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• California wild fires. The federal government was much quicker to act when it was rich white people instead of poor black people being threatened.

That's stupid.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• America is broke. Bush managed to double America's debt, and oversaw a 3x increase in the price of gasoline. Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings remain secret. All these wars of choice are causing a great deal of instability in the market.

Nancy Pelosi - who I'm sure you just adore - said "We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years," and "That's fiscal irresponsibility."

Did you know that a president does not have control over the budget? Congress does! And guess what?! Congress is under democratic control. It's congress' "fiscal irresponsibility", not President Bush's.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Falling value of the dollar, because America is broke. The entire world wants to dump the worthless dollar in favor of the Euro thanks to Bush's mismanagement of our economy and our standing with the rest of the world.

Um, wow. This is such an incredibly stupid comment I almost can't respond to it.

This may be hard for you to believe, but not everything is Bush's fault. The falling value off the dollar is not because of "Bush's mismanagement of our economy." This has been a longstanding problem, and is not within the scope of this discussion.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• $1 billion trade deficit.

It's being worked on.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Afghanistan. The one police action somewhat worthy of embarking upon is the one "war" Bush is ignoring and loosing. The Taliban are regaining control of the country and opium production is on the rise.

Maybe the Democrats should fund our troops then? It's difficult to fight a war without money.

Can't you see that the Democratic party creates all these problems, and then pin it all on Bush! It's a sick strategy, that unfortunately works!

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Torture, secret prisons, and suspension of habeas corpus, oh my!

This should go on a conspiracy forum, because that's all it is

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• Mike Huckabee freed a rapist from prison because his victim was distantly related to Bill Clinton, and then said it was all Bill Clinton's fault!!!

Mike Huckabee said that "I certainly did not pressure that board." He didn't free anybody, the court did.

And besides, do you remember when Bill Clinton pardoned friends, people who donated to his campaigns, his half brother, and 140 other people on his last day of office?

Your complaining that Mike Huckabee pardoned one person (which to my knowledge he actually didn't), when Bill Clintoned Pardoned 140 people on his last day of office?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

• I could go on, someone else has already come up with 1,000 reasons Bush has no business being president. But I need some lunch, and the Fixed News crowd is incapable of dealing with reality anyway.

Yeah, me too. But I need some dinner, and you probably couldn't deal with reality anyway.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Yeah, it's the democrats who suck.

I can't tell you how happy I am that you finally understand

Well Nathand, I can say you never do your own research to find out what the facts are. Ever heard of the phrase "think for yourself"? What about investigation?

Please remember to disagree agreeably. Everyone has an opinion and can express that opinion.

However, when the expression of the opinion flames or incites another to flame, then that is not allowed here. This thread was almost closed just due to the title, but it will be closed if we flame one another.

It's quite alright to disagree. When you disagree, please do not flame by calling another person's views or opinions stupid, or any other name that would insinuate that the other side is less intelligent or whatever, or even suggest that someone is a moron because of their differing opinion. Bring up objections and facts that show the other side's facts are wrong or skewed. Don't bring into the discussion subjective terms that will cause problems.

I hope that's clear for everyone. And that's not meant for one side or the other; it's meant for both sides that can't talk about this civilly.

Thanks for being considerate of other's opinions.

Dave

Originally Posted by Nathand

Did President Bush have intent to deceive? I don't believe he did.

One possible theory (Presented by CNN in the form of a documentory), is that a supposedly defected scientist employed by Hussein lied to German intelligence, claiming that he had witnessed the development of a biological program had witnessed an "accident" in which several people had been exposed and died. Germany informed the U.S. about this, and that's when we started really pursuing the matter.

A person who claimed to work at a weapons lab turned up in Germany. He was questioned for a long time. Reporters went to the place he claimed was a place to manufacture weapons and he didn't even know the geography. Why start a war over information of one person who's trustworthiness is suspect?

Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam was attempting to get bomb making material from Niger. That was shown to be false yet they continued to make the claims.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Others believe that the weapons were moved to Syria. Personally I think this might actually be the truth. Iraq delayed inspections by the U.N. for more then enough time to move the weapons.

Others "believed"? What about evidence. There is no evidence and that is only a claim to try cover up the Bush lie.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Whichever theory is true, the fact is satellite photographs were taken of mobile weapons stations, and the rest as they say, is history.

What mobile weapons stations? There were none found. What they did find was hydrogen trucks for balloons.

Originally Posted by Nathand

As our President said in a recent speech, if Iran had the knowledge to build these weapons in 2003, they have the knowledge to build them now!

So they had the knowledge? What did you want them to do, surrender everyone in the country with knowledge?

Originally Posted by Nathand

'The estimate further judged that US intelligence did not know whether Iran "intends to develop nuclear weapons," but that "Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame."'

That's from WikiPedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...ss_destruction

And because WikiPedia is not always accurate, read the NIE yourself:
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

'The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions against Iran, because Iran refuses to suspend its nuclear enrichment.'

What exactly do you think they're enriching uranium for? Iran says it's for peaceful purposes. Uh huh, that's why the UN has "imposed sanctions" against them.

So you work with the international community.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Again, when one senator and one congressman have sexual misconduct you cannot judge the entire party!

Is it worse for a congressman or a president to do this? Why do you still like Clinton? Were his deeds less appalling?

Clinton had sex with a consenting adult. Not illegal.

Originally Posted by Nathand

September 11th, was the direct result of a series of failures that started long before George Bush took office.

And continued because he did not concentrate on foreign policy until Sept 12th.

Originally Posted by Nathand

The city of New Orleans brought this disaster upon themselves, through their own "incompetence", "profound lack of security", and "racism".

If you actually understood how the country worked, you wouldn't have said what you just did.

You see, the GOVERNMENT that President Bush is a part of is NOT RESPONSIBLE for what happened there. The LOCAL GOVERNMENT is! Do you understand the difference? Because it's huge.

It was the U.S. Corps of Engineers who were responsible for the Levy. It was Bush's administration who didn't respond with FEMA in a timely manner. One reason is Bush appointed a political appointee to be the head of FEMA who was not qualified.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Did you know that a president does not have control over the budget? Congress does! And guess what?! Congress is under democratic control. It's congress' "fiscal irresponsibility", not President Bush's.

Did you know that the President submits the budget to Congress and after Congress ammends it, it is the president who signs it? Did you also know that for four years, Bush had a Republican Congress?

Originally Posted by Nathand

Maybe the Democrats should fund our troops then? It's difficult to fight a war without money.

Maybe the troops in Iraq should come home instead of fighting in a civil war. Maybe we should not allow Bush to fund Iraqi militias who have killed American troops by giving them money and weapons in exchange for not fighting.

Have you read about Afghanistan? Bush only sent a few troops because Rumsfeld wanted that. Bush and Co. have never wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now largely ruled by the Taliban again. Karzai can't even travel outside Kabul without a large American army presence.

Originally Posted by Nathand

This should go on a conspiracy forum, because that's all it is

The secret security prisons, torture and suspension of habeus corpus are so well documented, there is no need for a response.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Mike Huckabee said that "I certainly did not pressure that board." He didn't free anybody, the court did.

Mike Huckabee said. Now why would anyone question that? There are members of the parole board who said they WERE pressured.

Originally Posted by Nathand

This should go on a conspiracy forum, because that's all it is

That's a great idea! Check out my signature

Originally Posted by joder

Clinton had sex with a consenting adult. Not illegal.

Let me preface by saying, I could care less who Billy is banging. Good on him. However, what he did was completely inappropriate and would have cost him his job in any private or public sector job. Even a rabid liberal like Arianna Huffington agrees.

Originally Posted by joder

And continued because he did not concentrate on foreign policy until Sept 12th.

So you are implying that Osama created and implemented his 911 plot in the few months Bush was president prior and failed to "concentrate" on his foreign policy? Did you forget about the embassy bombings abroad? Did you forget about Osama sponsored Trade Tower bombing number 1? Clintons re-assignment of CIA human intelligence assets to trade policy? Bush Sr. cuts in the CIA budget and reduction of post cold-war human assets? The creation of the Osama by the CIA under Reagan? But noooooo its all Dubyas fault.

Originally Posted by joder

It was the U.S. Corps of Engineers who were responsible for the Levy. It was Bush's administration who didn't respond with FEMA in a timely manner. One reason is Bush appointed a political appointee to be the head of FEMA who was not qualified.

City destroyed by flood, people die for failure of the local government to evacuate, and all we can do is focus in on FEMA's failure to operate efficiently in the corrupt city of New Orleans? Then, by another layer of extraction, connect that to Bush. All this requires the reader to ignore all the surrounding facts.

Originally Posted by joder

Maybe the troops in Iraq should come home instead of fighting in a civil war. Maybe we should not allow Bush to fund Iraqi militias who have killed American troops by giving them money and weapons in exchange for not fighting.

Have you read about Afghanistan? Bush only sent a few troops because Rumsfeld wanted that. Bush and Co. have never wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now largely ruled by the Taliban again. Karzai can't even travel outside Kabul without a large American army presence.

So which is it. Send troops home? Move them to Afghanistan? I got a recommendation. Most countries seems to think the Afghanistan thing was the right thing to do. Why don't THEY put the necessary troops into Afghanistan to clean up this recent resurgence of the Taliban? That would leave the U.S. free to pull ALL of its troops out of Afghanistan and properly wrap up Iraq. Answer? They wont. Its a lot easier to take shots at the U.S. while you sit on the sidelines without risking your own blood and treasure.

Originally Posted by joder

The secret security prisons, torture and suspension of habeus corpus are so well documented, there is no need for a response.

Are you trying to imply that habeus corpus should extend to non-u.s. citizens captured on a battlefield abroad? Maybe it would make sense to make Guantanamo detainees eligible for citizenship. We could start up a jobs and health care program for them.

Originally Posted by joder

A person who claimed to work at a weapons lab turned up in Germany. He was questioned for a long time. Reporters went to the place he claimed was a place to manufacture weapons and he didn't even know the geography. Why start a war over information of one person who's trustworthiness is suspect?

Both Germany and the United States thought his information was good. I'm pretty sure reporters didn't go to the factory until after the war was mostly over.

Originally Posted by joder

Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam was attempting to get bomb making material from Niger. That was shown to be false yet they continued to make the claims.

I can't respond to this well because I don't remember the claims. However, if the president and vice president persevered with these claims, then maybe there is validity to this, I don't know.

Originally Posted by joder

Others "believed"? What about evidence. There is no evidence and that is only a claim to try cover up the Bush lie.

The evidence is that Syria is not a very nice country, that Hussein had plenty of time to move the WMDs, and that photographs were taken of mobile weapons stations.

Originally Posted by joder

What mobile weapons stations? There were none found. What they did find was hydrogen trucks for balloons.

The trucks are on things I like to call "wheels." That means, that they can move them

Originally Posted by joder

So they had the knowledge? What did you want them to do, surrender everyone in the country with knowledge?

No. We want Iran to cooperate with the U.N. and to stop enriching uranium! Maybe they are going to use their program for civilian purposes, but until they start cooperating with the United States and the U.N., were not going to know!

Originally Posted by joder

So you work with the international community.

Did I say that? I just posted some good info, and linked to some informative documents.

Originally Posted by joder

Clinton had sex with a consenting adult. Not illegal.

The former president of the United States had an affair with an intern.

Originally Posted by joder

And continued because he did not concentrate on foreign policy until Sept 12th.

How do you know this? He concentrated more on foreign policy before September 11th then the Clinton administration did in eight years. All President Clinton did was weaken our military and hand out candy to foreign countries, and least Bush didn't do that!

Originally Posted by joder

It was the U.S. Corps of Engineers who were responsible for the Levy. It was Bush's administration who didn't respond with FEMA in a timely manner. One reason is Bush appointed a political appointee to be the head of FEMA who was not qualified.

When the U.S. Corps of Engineers were told to build the levees they wanted to build it stronger then a category 3, but they weren't allowed. I forget when these levees were build, but Bush certainly wasn't president then.

The fact that levees were not built strong enough to withstand a category 4 hurricane is not the presidents fault.

Originally Posted by joder

Did you know that the President submits the budget to Congress and after Congress ammends it, it is the president who signs it? Did you also know that for four years, Bush had a Republican Congress?

But what I'm saying is that it's not all his fault, it does go through congress.

To be honest, I don't understand the national budget. But I don't think you, or anyone else on this forum does either. It must be unbelievably complex, and is not something that a dull witted reporter could understand. That's why they blame it all on Bush, because they don't understand it.

I think the country has been going downhill financially for a long time, much longer then Mr. Bush's presidency.

Originally Posted by joder

Maybe the troops in Iraq should come home instead of fighting in a civil war. Maybe we should not allow Bush to fund Iraqi militias who have killed American troops by giving them money and weapons in exchange for not fighting.

Who are you to say this? Maybe our brave troops should finish what was started, liberating a country from a tyrant. I wouldn't believe for a second that a president who defies the media (making him unpopular) to do what is right, would fund terrorists.

Enlighten me, please, with the sources of this information.

Originally Posted by joder

Have you read about Afghanistan? Bush only sent a few troops because Rumsfeld wanted that. Bush and Co. have never wanted to send more troops to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now largely ruled by the Taliban again. Karzai can't even travel outside Kabul without a large American army presence.

It may be largely ruled, but at least they don't own the country. The U.S. has delivered many hard blows to the Taliban, they are weakening. The key to winning this war on terrorism is perseverance. You and most democrats (I'm assuming you are one) want us to quit, that's not an option.

Tell me, what message do you think would it send to terrorists around the world, if the most powerful nation on earth were to surrender to the war on terrorism? It would tell them that they can't be beaten, that no one will sacrifice enough to beat them.

Originally Posted by joder

The secret security prisons, torture and suspension of habeus corpus are so well documented, there is no need for a response.

I'm never opposed to learning. If you believe it is so, then give me some reading material.

Originally Posted by joder

Mike Huckabee said. Now why would anyone question that? There are members of the parole board who said they WERE pressured.

Would you believe a member of a parole board, or the longtime governor of a state who's also a strong Christian?

Originally Posted by cbwm

Let me preface by saying, I could care less who Billy is banging. Good on him. However, what he did was completely inappropriate and would have cost him his job in any private or public sector job. Even a rabid liberal like Arianna Huffington agrees.

Let's look at what I said "in context". Clinton was not doing anything illegal was in response the Nathand's trying to use it in comparison to a Congressman having sex with a teenager. One's legal, the other is not.

Originally Posted by cbwm

So you are implying that Osama created and implemented his 911 plot in the few months Bush was president prior and failed to "concentrate" on his foreign policy? Did you forget about the embassy bombings abroad? Did you forget about Osama sponsored Trade Tower bombing number 1? Clintons re-assignment of CIA human intelligence assets to trade policy? Bush Sr. cuts in the CIA budget and reduction of post cold-war human assets? The creation of the Osama by the CIA under Reagan? But noooooo its all Dubyas fault.

That is really twisting what I said in order to make a point. I didn't say anyone before Bush did what needed to be done. You can go back a long, long way and no president has done what needed to be done. But the subject is Bush and he did nothing.

Originally Posted by cbwm

City destroyed by flood, people die for failure of the local government to evacuate, and all we can do is focus in on FEMA's failure to operate efficiently in the corrupt city of New Orleans? Then, by another layer of extraction, connect that to Bush. All this requires the reader to ignore all the surrounding facts.

Again, look at what I said. FEMA was responsible for the lack of a decent response AFTER the hurricane. Please read a little closer.

Originally Posted by cbwm

So which is it. Send troops home? Move them to Afghanistan? I got a recommendation. Most countries seems to think the Afghanistan thing was the right thing to do. Why don't THEY put the necessary troops into Afghanistan to clean up this recent resurgence of the Taliban? That would leave the U.S. free to pull ALL of its troops out of Afghanistan and properly wrap up Iraq. Answer? They wont. Its a lot easier to take shots at the U.S. while you sit on the sidelines without risking your own blood and treasure.

Send troops home in Iraq. More in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a war to stop terrorists. Iraq was NOT.

Go ask the other countries. They can do what they want.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Are you trying to imply that habeus corpus should extend to non-u.s. citizens captured on a battlefield abroad? Maybe it would make sense to make Guantanamo detainees eligible for citizenship. We could start up a jobs and health care program for them.

Why would you imply something that I did not say. I think you should stop trying to willfully misrepresent my position. Habeas Corpus suspension by the law the Republican Congress and Bush says "enemy combatants" and these are not defined or limited to the battle field.

Did you know most of the people that have been brought to Guantanamo have been released, some after years of imprisonment, because of no evidence?

Originally Posted by Nathand

I can't respond to this well because I don't remember the claims. However, if the president and vice president persevered with these claims, then maybe there is validity to this, I don't know.

I thought you already knew what had happened?

Originally Posted by Nathand

The trucks are on things I like to call "wheels." That means, that they can move them

All trucks have wheels. What a wonderful observation.

Originally Posted by Nathand

The former president of the United States had an affair with an intern. She was of legal age. The one who accused Foley was not.

Still not illegal.

Originally Posted by Nathand

How do you know this? He concentrated more on foreign policy before September 11th then the Clinton administration did in eight years. All President Clinton did was weaken our military and hand out candy to foreign countries, and least Bush didn't do that!

People who have followed Bush's presidency who were on NPR.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Who are you to say this? Maybe our brave troops should finish what was started, liberating a country from a tyrant. I wouldn't believe for a second that a president who defies the media (making him unpopular) to do what is right, would fund terrorists.

You want to fight tyranny? What about Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Zimbabwe? There are plenty of tyrants. What about stopping the genocide in Sudan?

Originally Posted by Nathand

It may be largely ruled, but at least they don't own the country. The U.S. has delivered many hard blows to the Taliban, they are weakening. The key to winning this war on terrorism is perseverance. You and most democrats (I'm assuming you are one) want us to quit, that's not an option.

Bush had the chance to go into Afghanistan with more troops. The generals wanted more. Rumsfeld overruled and Bush said, yes Rummy.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Tell me, what message do you think would it send to terrorists around the world, if the most powerful nation on earth were to surrender to the war on terrorism? It would tell them that they can't be beaten, that no one will sacrifice enough to beat them.

Iraq is not about any war on terrorism.

Originally Posted by Nathand

Would you believe a member of a parole board, or the longtime governor of a state who's also a strong Christian?

So are you saying every member of a parole board lies? Or that all governors tell the truth? A lot of Christians lie. Do you think that if someone says they are a Christian then whatever they say should be taken at face value? What about when one Christian contradicts another?

I know I know, you want to focus on Bush. That I think was the point of my post. That kind of Myopic focus ignores everything else around it. I dare say we could make the Mother Theresa into a mass murderer if we hooked up the right set of facts with the right kind of focus.

Regarding Iraq, not that it matters, but your viewpoint differs from the majority of the Democratic party and nearly all of the Republican party. Besides, we need to stick around in Iraq to pump out some of that oil we came for.


Regarding habeus corpus, to quote you, "torture and suspension of habeus corpus are so well documented, there is no need for a response". I responded by asking if you are implying that habeus corpus should be extended to non-citizens. I'm not sure how that falls into the category of "Willful misrepresntation" of your position, so why don't you clarify your position. Are you saying we have suspended habeus corpus for any U.S. Citizens? If not, are you implying that we should extend habeus corpus to non-citizens?

Did you know there have been several situations where released Guantanamo detainees have been later caught or killed on the battlefield as they re-engage in battle? Lets not forget released doesn't mean not guilty. Ask OJ.

Originally Posted by Nathand

It's called a hunting accident? I believe it happens, oh... All the time?

Wow. The last time a sitting vice president shot a man was July 11, 1804. Over matters of honor and questions of how the newly founded republic should be governed; Alexander Hamilton wasn't confused with a six inch bird.

If you think Americans shoot their friends in the face 'all the time,' that makes me wonder if you've grown up inside Abu Ghraib?

Originally Posted by Nathand

Your complaining that Mike Huckabee pardoned one person (which to my knowledge he actually didn't), when Bill Clintoned Pardoned 140 people on his last day of office?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

You could try reading what you're responding to... The part about Huckabee paroling the man because his victim was a second cousin of Clinton's is morally repugnant. How many of your 140 people went on to rape and kill multiple times after their release?

With all due respect, anyone who could mention "the Clinton Murders" really shouldn't be taking part in a conversation about reality.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I know I know, you want to focus on Bush. That I think was the point of my post. That kind of Myopic focus ignores everything else around it. I dare say we could make the Mother Theresa into a mass murderer if we hooked up the right set of facts with the right kind of focus.

Regarding Iraq, not that it matters, but your viewpoint differs from the majority of the Democratic party and nearly all of the Republican party. Besides, we need to stick around in Iraq to pump out some of that oil we came for.

So you only want to talk about past (Democratic) presidents. Aren't most of the events we have been discussing been under the tenure of the president who has served for the last almost 7 years?

If you think Mother Teresa is a saint, you might want to check the facts first.

I don't care how many people or politicians agree with me.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Regarding habeus corpus, to quote you, "torture and suspension of habeus corpus are so well documented, there is no need for a response". I responded by asking if you are implying that habeus corpus should be extended to non-citizens. I'm not sure how that falls into the category of "Willful misrepresntation" of your position, so why don't you clarify your position. Are you saying we have suspended habeus corpus for any U.S. Citizens? If not, are you implying that we should extend habeus corpus to non-citizens?

Did you know there have been several situations where released Guantanamo detainees have been later caught or killed on the battlefield as they re-engage in battle? Lets not forget released doesn't mean not guilty. Ask OJ.

I said no evidence. They were released by the military when they weren't required to by a court. These people were not tried in a court. They were release by the military which would have done so if they thought they were a threat.

They tried to deny a U.S. citizen Jose Padilla his right to Habeas Corpus. He was able to finally get a trial after a long period of time. I think Padilla was guilty but he still deserved his rights. I don't think the government can just hold any non-U.S. citizen for as long as they want without a trial. A trial can be in front of a judge without the evidence that would put in jeopardy national security from becoming known to anyone outside.

Originally Posted by joder

I don't think the government can just hold any non-citizen for as long as they want without a trial.

Sure they can ... look at Attila the Hun, or Vlad the Impaler. For a government that's ostensibly spreading democracy to work against everything democracy depends upon, here and abroad, is leaving a black mark on our history.

cbwm and Nathand

Why don't you get off your Talking Points horses and start use Facts for a change?

The only reason G. W. Bush II is still walking free man, because Democrats had no guts.
I stand corrected.
Because they have more class than sexually deprived, homosexual, pedophiles who hide
behind the Bible and Moral Values façade Republicans.


fastreplies

Originally Posted by joder

So you only want to talk about past (Democratic) presidents. Aren't most of the events we have been discussing been under the tenure of the president who has served for the last almost 7 years?

If you think Mother Teresa is a saint, you might want to check the facts first.

I don't care how many people or politicians agree with me.



I said no evidence. They were released by the military when they weren't required to by a court. These people were not tried in a court. They were release by the military which would have done so if they thought they were a threat.

They tried to deny a U.S. citizen Jose Padilla his right to Habeas Corpus. He was able to finally get a trial after a long period of time. I think Padilla was guilty but he still deserved his rights. I don't think the government can just hold any non-U.S. citizen for as long as they want without a trial. A trial can be in front of a judge without the evidence that would put in jeopardy national security from becoming known to anyone outside.

You need to go back and re read what I wrote. You've missed the point, and the fact that I mentioned several Republican presidents that were complicit in the events that lead to 9-11.

Regarding denying a habeus corpus to U.S. citizens, here is one citizen I hope, and feel confident, they will thoroughly interrogate and throw into Guantanamo for as long as possible. Other than that, the U.S. government has taken unconventional steps to combat an unconventional enemy. While many, myself included, are not thrilled with the idea of picking up people, citizens or otherwise, and locking them up indefinitely, the fact remains the tactics we have taken are working as we haven't had an attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. That is not to endorse the permanent adoption of an institution like Guantanamo, or the Patriot Act.

Perhaps the difference is, you feel the actions the government has taken to keep its people safe make it's leader a criminal, where as I see them as a logical response. I also believe you will see new and more permanent laws put into place to deal with this kind of enemy without so heavily stepping on the constitution.

I also think you ought to give the history books a read about how the U.S. dealt with citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Perhaps you would have called the President, elected from the Democratic Party a criminal for his actions at that time too.

Originally Posted by fastreplies

cbwm and Nathand

Why don't you get off your Talking Points horses and start use Facts for a change?

The only reason G. W. Bush II is still walking free man, because Democrats had no guts.
I stand corrected.
Because they have more class than sexually deprived, homosexual, pedophiles who hide
behind the Bible and Moral Values façade Republicans.


fastreplies

HAHAHAHAHAA


Ok, this time I'm being facetious. Seriously though. It is funny to wrap up a post that says "Start using facts" with a broad generalization equating all Republicans to "sexually deprived, homosexual, pedophiles who hide
behind the Bible and Moral Values façade".

Originally Posted by cbwm

HAHAHAHAHAA


Ok, this time I'm being facetious. Seriously though. It is funny to wrap up a post that says "Start using facts" with a broad generalization equating all Republicans to "sexually deprived, homosexual, pedophiles who hide
behind the Bible and Moral Values façade".

Ok then, use your facts and prove me wrong.


fastreplies