au1929 wrote:Mcg
I see you are still among the 39% that still support the weasel and think think did the right thing.
What will it take to have people like you to wake up to reality.
It is a matter of faith for these kool-aid drinkers.
Snake wrote
Quote:I mean, Monica Lewinski looks like something I'd expect to see on the centerfold of some livestock journal. I mean, imagine all of those European presidents and PMs standing around with their actresses and supermodels looking at those pictures of Slick Klintler and his little pig; they must have laughed themselves stupid.
What they are laughing at and wondering about the big issue that was made by those in government about a sexual indiscretion. As to laughing themselves stupid imagine what their thoughts are about that moron with his finger on the button that was elected to sit in the oval office.
Snake wrote
Quote:I view poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax as terrorism.
The act of terrorism you are alluding to by all indications was of the home grown variety.
ico
Why is the support for the war flagging?. Because it was built on a lie. People even his supporters have finally come to that realization. They no longer trust him and the cabal that runs this nation. Why do you suppose that the republican's up for reelection in congress are starting to say thanks but no thanks for his help during their upcoming campaigns?
They fear he will turn into a poison pill.
Poll: Most Americans Doubt Bush's Honesty
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Most Americans say they aren't impressed by the ethics and honesty of the Bush administration, already under scrutiny for its justifications for an unpopular war in Iraq and its role in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.
Almost six in 10 - 57 percent - said they do not think the Bush administration has high ethical standards and the same portion says President Bush is not honest, an AP-Ipsos poll found. Just over four in 10 say the administration has high ethical standards and that Bush is honest. Whites, Southerners and white evangelicals were most likely to believe Bush is honest.
au1929 wrote:
Snake wrote
Quote:I view poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax as terrorism.
The act of terrorism you are alluding to by all indications was of the home grown variety.
The first anthrax cases turned up in the very neighborhood of the 9-11 hijackers. 2 + 2 still equals four... Other than that, who other than Saddam Hussein would a guy like Mohammed Atta get anthrax from.
au1929 wrote:ico
Why is the support for the war flagging?. Because it was built on a lie. People even his supporters have finally come to that realization. They no longer trust him and the cabal that runs this nation. Why do you suppose that the republican's up for reelection in congress are starting to say thanks but no thanks for his help during their upcoming campaigns?
They fear he will turn into a poison pill.
If it was a lie (which it's not), it is a lie that was formed by the preceeding administration.
Do we have to go back and quote Cheney and Rice and the mushroom cloud bullshit and all that. The American people were lead to believe that Saddam posed an immediate nuclear threat. That was the big lie and it was a lie cooked up by Bush, Cheney and the WHIG.
The American people were not worried about Sadam attacking us with mustard gas.
Really, the denial is becoming laughable.
Or it would be laughable if not so tragic.
Ticomaya wrote:au1929 wrote:ico
Why is the support for the war flagging?. Because it was built on a lie. People even his supporters have finally come to that realization. They no longer trust him and the cabal that runs this nation. Why do you suppose that the republican's up for reelection in congress are starting to say thanks but no thanks for his help during their upcoming campaigns?
They fear he will turn into a poison pill.
If it was a lie (which it's not), it is a lie that was formed by the preceeding administration.
If you can't see that Bush and co. provided the push to go to war; that this was GW Bush's war from the beginning - then you are hopeless.
snood wrote:Ticomaya wrote:au1929 wrote:ico
Why is the support for the war flagging?. Because it was built on a lie. People even his supporters have finally come to that realization. They no longer trust him and the cabal that runs this nation. Why do you suppose that the republican's up for reelection in congress are starting to say thanks but no thanks for his help during their upcoming campaigns?
They fear he will turn into a poison pill.
If it was a lie (which it's not), it is a lie that was formed by the preceeding administration.
If you can't see that Bush and co. provided the push to go to war; that this was GW Bush's war from the beginning - then you are hopeless.
Oh, it's definitely Bush's war. Unlike you, I don't see that as a bad thing.
It's this, "Bush lied, people died" bs that I have difficulty with.
Gungasnake, whose excellent posts I usually agree with, is off the mark when he states that Clinton's affair was about perverted nookie. Clinton was IMPEACHED for obstruction of Justice. That is, as Mr. Libby may find out--A CRIME.
It is absurd to try to excuse Clinton's Obstruction of Justice with the statement that it was about sex so that was no "big deal". Anyone familiar with the law can show that sexual activity is indeed material to many legal claims, both old and new, ranging from action for divorce and disputes over custody and prosecutions for rape, childmolestation, sexual harrassment, and paternity.
Clinton was, as the Presidential Historian, Dr. Fred I. Greenstein, has succinctly pointed out a president "without sufficent emotional intelligence". His adolecent incapacity to control his sexual urges was, without a doubt, a major factor in his complete failure to keep a Democratic Majority in the House and Senate.
Gungasnake is correct but does not focus on the legal reason for Clinton's impeachement.
As of today -
Libby is still under indictment and has pled not guilty
Rove is still under investigation
Bush has refused to say if he will pardon Libby or not.
The WH has not answered if it will release the documents needed for the trial or claim Executive privilage to obstruct the trial.
The Whitehouse refuses to discuss the Plame outing in any way shape or form.
The Republicans call for an investigation of the leak of classified material about the CIA prisons that may violate international law but ignore the leak by the WH of classified information about Plame completely.
Is there really any question why Bush and the GOP are not trusted by the majority of the country?
Politics is the art of blowing minor acts to monumental proportions normally identified as making a mountain out of a molehill or tempest in a teapot. It was of no national consequence except to embarrass/destroy Clinton.
Mortkat wrote: It is absurd to try to excuse Clinton's Obstruction of Justice with the statement that it was about sex so that was no "big deal".
It
was about sex. Obviously.
Mortkat wrote:Anyone familiar with the law can show that sexual activity is indeed material to many legal claims, both old and new, ranging from action for divorce....
My point exactly. What would happen if men were prosecuted for a divorce proceeding where they denied having sex with a certain woman, only to discover the spouse has pictures of them in the motel?
We would have to convert whole cities into prisons just to hold the convicts.
Thank you for making my point for me, Mortkat.
Ticomaya wrote:The reasons for the war have not changed.
<snicker>
"We have to fight Iraq because they're behind 9/11. You know, kind of. I mean, like, they have connections to Al Qaida. Er. Some connections. Maybe. So, really, we have to fight Iraq because they have WMD. And they will use those WMD on us. And we
know where they're hiding them. The WMD. The WMD programs, I mean. They are hiding them. The capacity. They are hiding the capacity to start WMD programs. Come to think about it, we have to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Yes. That's it. Absolutely."
we are in imminent danger of the "mushroom cloud"
Lol!!! STILL trying to divert with Clinton.
I am imagining, in years to come, these obsessions having odd effects....
Right wing obsessed Clinton hater, on death bed, beloved spouse says:
"Doctor, is it bad"
"As bad as it could be, I'm afraid, sir/ma'am, I have never seen a ***** (insert name of disease) progress this fast. It is the worst it could be."
Patient. leaping agiatatedly from death bed, screams:
"BAD???!!!! Bad, you say??? CLINTON WAS WORSE!!!!"
The patient's outrage drives out the disease!
Soon, word spreads of similar miraculous cures!
A movement grows, people pray to Clinton...then, people beg for his beatification.....
"Beatify Bill!" they cry.
"He was a miserable sinner" cry the opposition.
"So was Saul!" is the rejoinder.....
St Bill.........ah, the fruit of hate.....
Of course, with a name like Bush, the similar story for the other side is unprintable on this maidenly site.....
old europe wrote:Ticomaya wrote:The reasons for the war have not changed.
<snicker>
"We have to fight Iraq because they're behind 9/11. You know, kind of. I mean, like, they have connections to Al Qaida. Er. Some connections. Maybe. So, really, we have to fight Iraq because they have WMD. And they will use those WMD on us. And we
know where they're hiding them. The WMD. The WMD programs, I mean. They are hiding them. The capacity. They are hiding the capacity to start WMD programs. Come to think about it, we have to bring democracy to the people of Iraq. Yes. That's it. Absolutely."
What are you snickering about? Your attempt at creative writing?
Oh. Do you mean you were serious when you said that the reasons for the war have not changed?
