Bush planed Iraq war pre 9/11

[DIVA1177]

Originally posted by AlphaGamDiva
anymore, i really have to laugh at ppl who get all fussy about presidents lying. or moreso, basing their opinion of them as a president on their lying. i'm guilty of it, too.....even though i never liked clinton, the fact he lied about gettin on ol' lewinsky made him that much more disgusting.

and now that the dems have some "proof" that bush has been lying, they're all like, "OMG.....bad man! bad! you horrible POS for LYING to us and deceiving us...."

yet when clinton did it, he was just tryin to "get some" and it was ok......i believe he was a laughing stock of the world for a while, too, as is bush becoming with some ppl. (no worries, i will love the w forever )

all the same....it's all a lie.....be ok with it or not, just realize how fickle and absolutely ridiculous the public is.

Sweetie...the difference is that the Republicans WENT AFTER Clinton to the point of having his conversations taped and having loose lips Lewinsky's taped also. THey wanted something, anything to discredit Clinton futher because he was really becomming popular. Personally, I could care less that he was getting some brains from some big loosebooty! WHO CARES. It is not my place to judge but his getting brains is a hell of a lot cheaper than the dead presidents that Bush is spending on this "WAR".

[madmax]

Hillary Clinton supported military action and the removal of Saddam. What were her reasons for supporting military action? Was Hillary lying?

It is kind of ironic that The1calledTKE complains about a Bush policy while at the same time he supports the Clintons even though the Clintons also support that specific policy.

Let's be honest. The reason this thread was posted isn't because Bush did anything wrong. It was posted because Bush isn't a welfare supporting bleeding heart liberal Democrat.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by madmax
Hillary Clintons supported military action and the removal of Saddam. What were her reasons for supporting military action? Was Hillary lying?

It is kind of ironic that The1calledTKE complains about a Bush policy while at the same time he supports the Clintons even though the Clintons also support that specific policy.

Let's be honest. The reason this thread was posted isn't becuse Bush did anything wrong. It was posted because Bush isn't a welfare supporting bleeding heart liberal Democrat.

Agreed. It wasn't posted to go after anyone who said there were WMDs or that we should have this war, it was started to bash Bush.

-Rudey

[AlphaGamDiva]

my point in my post was just to acknowledge that presidents lie and that the public is often stupid (meaning that repubs will always go after dems, and dems will always go after repubs....and in the end, it seem ridiculous to me sometimes).

that is all.

my name is not "sweetie"

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by Rudey
Agreed. It wasn't posted to go after anyone who said there were WMDs or that we should have this war, it was started to bash Bush.

-Rudey

Which we seem to have a lot of lately - the threads started just to bash Bush (or just to bash Liberals) are pretty weak in my opinion. Luckily some intelligent discussion has occurred amongst all of this.

[The1calledTKE]

Well most these threads start from news articles and deal with politics. Yes they may not deal with nice thing said about Bush. But its news just like any news article threads dealing with something a democrat did bad. And for the record Clinton was wrong for that attack he did on Iraq to take the pressure off the Lewinsky case. Just because I like Clinton doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he did. I am sure Bush is a good man, I just disagree with more of his policies than I agree with.

[James]

It might be a better commentary on the population of the USA . . . That we are so uneducated that we can't understand the real issue . . we need comforting lies and inflated drama to justify actions.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by KSigkid
Which we seem to have a lot of lately - the threads started just to bash Bush (or just to bash Liberals) are pretty weak in my opinion. Luckily some intelligent discussion has occurred amongst all of this.

I think the majority of them are started to incite some intelligent debate but quickly degenerate into "Bush sucks!" / "No he doesn't, you suck!" and the points that might actually be interesting to debate or simply to discuss are lost. There are far too many people who can't seem to move past the Bush/anti-Bush mindset. It turns into that whole situation where people care more about "being right" (many times on situations that probably don't have just one right answer) than they do about learning or discussing or having interesting conversation.

Not every article or thread posted that says something negative about Bush is necessarily trying to bait conservatives (and I'm sure the same goes for the opposite side of the political spectrum).

For example, in regards to this issue I would be curious to know how many conservatives would it actually make a difference to if the scenario posed in the first article (that Bush was itching to go to war since the beginning of his term) proved true. I imagine not many, but I don't really know. And why would it make a difference/why wouldn't it make a difference?

[Rudey]

9 times out of 10 I'm always right.

ETA: If they're about intelligent debate you would start posting things against Democrats and liberals...but hey let's just post stuff about those we dislike and see what people say...we'll call that an intelligent debate.

-Rudey
--Always.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I think the majority of them are started to incite some intelligent debate but quickly degenerate into "Bush sucks!" / "No he doesn't, you suck!" and the points that might actually be interesting to debate or simply to discuss are lost. There are far too many people who can't seem to move past the Bush/anti-Bush mindset. It turns into that whole situation where people care more about "being right" (many times on situations that probably don't have just one right answer) than they do about learning or discussing or having interesting conversation.

Not every article or thread posted that says something negative about Bush is necessarily trying to bait conservatives (and I'm sure the same goes for the opposite side of the political spectrum).

For example, in regards to this issue I would be curious to know how many conservatives would it actually make a difference to if the scenario posed in the first article (that Bush was itching to go to war since the beginning of his term) proved true. I imagine not many, but I don't really know. And why would it make a difference/why wouldn't it make a difference?

[DeltAlum]

Too bad George the First didn't order Stormin' Norman to just drive into Baghdad and finish the job correctly the first time. Then we could think of something else to argue about.

[phigamucsb]

Just wanted to let The one called TKE know that your good liberal hippy site is trash. Any site that gives reference to, or is supported by Moveon.org lacks any credability in the real world.

[The1calledTKE]

Let me guess not a liberal? lol

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
9 times out of 10 I'm always right.

I really like that.

Like a TV Weatherman (person) who is 90% right 10% of the time?

But seriously, folks...

Is it worrisome to you that we all pretty much agree that the alleged most powerful man in the world (no matter who or which party) is expected to lie to us?

There's something just basically wrong about the sound of that.

[justamom]

MY head hurts.........

As a conservative, yes, I am upset about the "lie". I won't even say I'll vote for Bush again. I want to see what the Dems bring to the table. It's just that all the way around it looks like slim pickins'.

I thought DEKEGUY had a great explanation. Russell you too. I would never try to argue history in this area with Rudey.

sugar and spice went to the bottom line-these debates always seem to turn into a "you suck...no, YOU suck" situation.

I do enjoy reading this.

[DeltAlum]

Vote NO for President.