MovieChat Forums > The Hunting of the President (2004) Discussion > But he LIED on the stand!!!

But he LIED on the stand!!!

posted 20 years ago by FuzzyWzhe
44 replies | jump to latest

http://www.kirktoons.com/february_2004/images/2_4_04_Stained_Dress.jpg

As a result of Bill Clinton's lie.....

He was forced to sleep on the couch for awhile, stained a dress, and made a young girl and overnight celebrity (Dave Chappelle as Bill Clinton: "Suck my dick, there's a future in it!")

As a result of George W. Bush's lie.....

Almost a thousand US troops have been killed in an unnessisary war, the rest of the world has been alienated from the US, Civil War has broken out in Iraq, and the leader of group who killed 3000 Americans still hasn't been caught.

[–] kyleb18940 20 years ago

Clinton's lie cost our nation millions in an unnceccary investigation, and there is unfalliable proof he lied.

There is absolutely no hard evidence that Bush lied, and in fact, evidence out there supports that he was MISTAKEN, not lying.

Get your facts right

And as for Osama not being caught, it took our FBI almost a decade to catch Eric Rudolph in our own country, and he was one of their top 10, and we caught him, by accident, eating out a trash can. I'm not the least bit surprised we haven't found Osama

[–] vitaminI 20 years ago

“Clinton's lie cost our nation millions in an unnceccary investigation, and there is unfalliable proof he lied.”

Clinton's lie did not cost the nation millions. The Whitewater investigators didn’t have much of a case to begin with and they needlessly cost the nation still more millions with all that Lewinsky related b.s. However, despite those wasted millions, Clinton still managed to create a record surplus.

“There is absolutely no hard evidence that Bush lied, and in fact, evidence out there supports that he was MISTAKEN, not lying..”

Mistaken my ass. It is well known that he wanted to go into Iraq the second he stepped into the Whitehouse.
-He knew that there was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida.
-There were more than enough conflicting reports on Iraq’s WMDs to cast a big doubt in any idiot’s mind.
-Iraq was obviously no threat to America. There are at least a dozen other nations which were, and still are, much worst.
-Anyone who has not been hypnotized by the Fox News Channel knows that removing Saddam from power did not help in our ‘War on Terror’.

And those are just his lies concerning the Iraq war.

“And as for Osama not being caught, it took our FBI almost a decade to catch Eric Rudolph in our own country, and he was one of their top 10, and we caught him, by accident, eating out a trash can. I'm not the least bit surprised we haven't found Osama.”

Unlike Eric Rudolph, Osama is an international celebrity who, more than likely, is constantly surrounded by a large group of people. He should have been caught at least two years ago, and he would have been if Bush was concerned with stopping Al-Qaida. But he’s only been interested in Iraq.

Actually, Osama would have been killed five or six years ago if the bogus Lewinsky scandal hadn’t wasted so much of the Clinton administration’s resources. The republicans made damn sure that any military actions at that point would have been politically impossible for Clinton.

[–] mazermug 20 years ago

Osama would never have been killed with a liberal in office, even though that is what the bastard deserves. But you are right about some things: Osama should have been caught long ago, considering he was offered to the Clinton administration by the Saudi government a total of what, 6 times? People love to overlook that fact in the midst of their Clinton fanaticism.

[–] someone78-1 20 years ago

If I remember correctly, Clinton was the one who put the bounty on Osama's head. Clinton also had his people come up with a very detailed plan about how to get rid of Al Qaeda. The plan involved rooting out the fake charities and other terrorism funding organizations, as well as a plan for ground troop deployment in Afghanistan.
Clinton tried a few times to kill Bin Laden by sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan where various intelligence services reported Bin Laden was at, but the Republicans started yelling about how Clinton was wagging the dog and forced him to stop trying to kill who is now the most wanted man in the world.
Rice and other Bush staffers are on the record saying that Clinton obsessed over Al Qaeda and spent to much time on the whole anti-terrorism program. Of course, they said this before 9-11; after the trade center bombings, the same people started going on talk shows to tell people that Clinton spent no time on terrorism.

[–] mazermug 20 years ago

That's because he spent almost NO time on terrorism. If what you say has even the smallest amount of truth, why would he turn down Bin Laden when he was offered to our government?!?! He claimed at the time that we "Didn't have a solid case against Bin Laden", and yet you say he launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan? I think you may be skewing some facts.

[–] gnj1958 20 years ago

The reason he never accepted Osama Bin Laden the 6 times he was offered by the Sudanese was because it never happened. The lies about this fabricated event have been debunked. Even the bipartisan 9/11 commission said they could find no evidence these events ever took place

[–] mazermug 20 years ago

Of course it has to disintegrate into the "Big Bad Republican Conspiracy" thing yet again. Get a life. There's plenty of evidence, and if you had actually read the 9/11 commission reports, you'd find that they don't even mention that.

[–] garypen 20 years ago

Folks like mazermug cannot be reasoned with using traditional points of argument, such as facts, logic, or any form of rational thinking. They are so wrapped up in hatred, pride, arrogance, and denial that they will never be able to understand. It's a lost cause.

Sadly, an unbelievable number of Americans are like that. It's a fuggin' shame that the most wonderful country on Earth, with such a fantastic cross-section of people, could have such a huge number of simplistic morons who feel exactly as he does, often moreso!

In keeping with the movie-related theme of IMDB, I quote my favorite line from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles:
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."

[–] vitaminI 20 years ago

"Sadly, an unbelievable number of Americans are like that. It's a fuggin' shame that the most wonderful country on Earth, with such a fantastic cross-section of people, could have such a huge number of simplistic morons who feel exactly as he does, often moreso!"

A big fuggin' shame.

[–] gnj1958 19 years ago

I never said it was in the report. But many of the members of the commision have answered questions about this in interviews and they all said they could find no evidence to back up the claims. So there.

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

<<<“There is absolutely no hard evidence that Bush lied, and in fact, evidence out there supports that he was MISTAKEN, not lying..”

Mistaken my ass. It is well known that he wanted to go into Iraq the second he stepped into the Whitehouse.
-He knew that there was no connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida.>>>

YOu mean other than the fact that Al Qaeda had bases in Iraq, that Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda operative, was given refuge by Uday Hussein, that Iraqi agents met with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

<<<-There were more than enough conflicting reports on Iraq’s WMDs to cast a big doubt in any idiot’s mind.>>>>

You said it yourself, there were CONFLICTING reports. In 1991, the intelligence agencies found out that they had vastly UNDERESTIMATED Saddam's WMD capabilities, and they were widely criticized for it at the time. This time, they overestimated them.

So are you saying that Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and all the other Democratic Senators who voted FOR the war were idiots?

<<<-Iraq was obviously no threat to America. There are at least a dozen other nations which were, and still are, much worst.>>>

QUick, name all 12.

<<<-Anyone who has not been hypnotized by the Fox News Channel knows that removing Saddam from power did not help in our ‘War on Terror’.

And those are just his lies concerning the Iraq war.>>>

I beg to differ. I think by sending out a clear message to states that sponsor terrorism, you make them less likely to do so. Syria and Libya obviously got the message, since they are taking actions to keep from being attacked.

<<<“And as for Osama not being caught, it took our FBI almost a decade to catch Eric Rudolph in our own country, and he was one of their top 10, and we caught him, by accident, eating out a trash can. I'm not the least bit surprised we haven't found Osama.”

Unlike Eric Rudolph, Osama is an international celebrity who, more than likely, is constantly surrounded by a large group of people. He should have been caught at least two years ago, and he would have been if Bush was concerned with stopping Al-Qaida. But he’s only been interested in Iraq.>>>>

I'm not sure where you get the "he should have been caught two years ago" nonsense. Usually, it takes decades to catch individual terrorists, even the celebrity ones. Look how long it took to catch Carlos the Jackel.

By taking out the Taliban and Saddam, Bush sent an important message. If your government supports terrorists, we will take you out.

<<<Actually, Osama would have been killed five or six years ago if the bogus Lewinsky scandal hadn’t wasted so much of the Clinton administration’s resources. The republicans made damn sure that any military actions at that point would have been politically impossible for Clinton.>>

So, what you are saying is that Slick Willie couldn't chew gum and walk. The reality is that he destroyed his own reputation. I remember the one military action he took against bin Laden, when he bombed the Sudan and Afghanistan. He used very expensive Cruise missiles, because he couldn't order pilots into harm's way. It turns out that aspirin factory in the Sudan had nothing to do with Osama (even though Clinton claimed that - gasp - Iraqi agents helped set it up), and the camp in Afghanistan was empty.

Besides the fact this action took place days after he testified in front of Starr's grand jury, the fact this was an attempt at distraction was underscored by Sudanese protestors holding up signs saying, "No war for Monica".

[–] garypen 20 years ago

A married guy lying about getting a blow job. Oh my god!!!!!

A president lying about the reasons for starting a war that has so far killed over 1000 Americans, wounded over 7,000 Americans, and killed and wounded thousands of inoocent Iragis, including women and children. OH MY GOD!!!

[–] sobarge 19 years ago

Let's have Bush submit his taped deposition and see how well he can lie! He makes Clinton look like a choir boy.

[–] THE_Tetsuo 18 years ago

"Clinton's lie cost our nation millions in an unnceccary investigation, and there is unfalliable proof he lied."

No, the Republicans who persecuted him cost America millions in an unnecessary investigation.

"There is absolutely no hard evidence that Bush lied, and in fact, evidence out there supports that he was MISTAKEN, not lying."

Downing Street Memo

"Get your facts right "

Please take your own advice.

"This year I'm voting Republican. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-Monica Lewinsky

[–] munnp001 18 years ago

It wasnt Clintons Lie that cost millions of dollars in investigation it was over zealous republicans in congress who decided that he shouldnt be allowed to govern.

"Spare me your sixth grade Michael Moore logic" - James Heller

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

Yes, I guess the war was unnecessary. So you are going to go to Iraq to petition that Saddam be set free, right? Because clearly, if he was so innocent, he shouldn't be sitting in jail, facing probably execution.

Yes, I know there is that little matter of the half million people he killed and the fact he attacked four of his neighbors, but what's a little genocide and aggression between friends, right?

As far as Osama, Clinton had three oppurtunities to have him extradited, and four to have him assassinated, and he passed on all of them. Bush has at least taken action against this guy, denying him a base of operations. Now all he can do is send out videotapes making bizarre threats.

And why do you liberals really care about what the rest of the world thinks about us, anyway?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Laurenne 20 years ago

Amen to that....
The amount of innocents dead because of Bush rises everyday.
I dont give a *beep* who Clinton slept with, he still left the White House and his position with this country is the best shape its been in years, and barely four years later, Bush will leave it in the WORST shape its been in years...

"We are all in the gutter; but some of us are looking at the stars."-Oscar Wilde

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

People.....COME UP WITH SOMETHING NEW TO SAY!!!!!

If I hear one more person say the "He lied about a BJ who cares, Bush's lie killed thousands" I'm gonna have a *beep* heart attack.

If it comes out with PROOF (I can't stress that enough) that Bush lied about everything in order to get us into Iraq, then he is just as bad as Clinton. But, he didn't lie. No one can, or has, shown he has lied. Clinton did lie. Under oath. That is a felony, punishable up to and including 5 years in jail. A serious offense. If he hadn't been so busy cheating on his wife, getting a blowjob, sexually harassing every piece of tail he saw, and all that jazz, he could have kept his eye on the ball.

And just for the record, using your logic, Clinton is just as bad as Bush. We went into Kosovo to stop mass murder, with Clinton saying that there were mass graves, which we never found. Afghanistan and Al Quida took responsiblity for 4 terrorist bombings during his watch, including the USS Cole and the first WTC bombing, and the only nations he bombed during his admin was Libya and Iraq, who didn't atttack us. And if we're discussing "disasters", don't forget Bosnia and Somalia.
Does that mean I hate all of Clinton's decisions? No. In fact, the only ones I disagreed with were Bosnia and Somalia. But I was just applying your logic and interpretation of The Bush Adminstration to the democratic parties hero, Clinton.

[–] Laurenne 19 years ago

We know there were no WMD's...that sounds like proof of a lie to me.

"We are all in the gutter; but some of us are looking at the stars."-Oscar Wilde

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

Well then you need to get your ears checked. The UN as late as 2000 admitted Iraq had and was developing WMD's. Clinton admitted in 98 they did, which is why he bombed them. Saddam used chemical and biological weapons against the Kurds, his own people, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and launched SCUD missles at Israel. He abused the Oil For Food program to obtain technology he wasn't allowed to have, tried to buy yellow cake from Niger, and was trying to get UN sanctions lifted so he could restart his weapons programs. We've obtained documents from Iraq dictating how to hide the contraband from inspectorsm, who really didn't do their job in the first place, even Hans Blix admitted they were lax. We seized silos full of ricin, an active agent in chem weapons, labs for developing them, and dozens of scientists.
The only thing we didn't find we silos housing nukes and completed delivery devices, thank god, because it would only have been a matter of time before he used them, which would have incited massive violence in the middle east, dragging all other nations involved into it, and used them against our troops.
Saddam was dangerous, rogue, threatening to middle eastern stablity, and was a terrorist sympathizer.

And as for it being a lie, *beep* As I said, he had everything except nukes sitting in a warehouse. And if that is what you expected us to find when we said "WMD"s, someone has been reading WAY too much crap in the New York Times

[–] don-366 19 years ago

You said:

"The UN as late as 2000 admitted Iraq had and was developing WMD's".

Why haven't we foundy any WMD's and further why has the administration called off the search for WMD's?

In the months preceding 9/11 we heard nothing about Iraq. The current administration is on record at the time saying that Saddam posed no threat and had no WMD's. Then in the months following the attacks we started hearing that Saddam had WMD's and that he had to disarm or face military action.

If the WMD's were in a warehouse somewhere in Iraq don't you think the administration (currently under fire for not finding these weapons) would want to find this "warehouse"?

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

That's right I said that. I didn't make it up, the UN said it, along with Germany, England, Russia, and President Clinton and his staff. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, I was just using it to illuminate how such an intelligence SNAFU could have occured. Our intelligence community has been crapola for the past years, so it is easy to see how previous as well as current adminstrations could have miscalculated the WMD issue. Alot of people were convinced he had them, not just Bush. And it wasn't a fabricated issue either.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Joebuss555 19 years ago

by - Laurenne on Sun Jan 23 2005 06:13:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know there were no WMD's...that sounds like proof of a lie to me.>>>

Then Bill CLinton was lying, because he made EXACTLY the same claim when he authorized the bombing of Iraq in December, 1998. This was the bombing that happened the same week he was impeached in the House. Just as the only time he bombed Al Qaeda was the week he had to testify in front of the grand jury.

We should be happy for the Monica Scandal. It was the only thing that got Clinton off his ass to try to do something about Terrorism.

Add to your list of liars HIllary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Leiberman, Dick Gephardt, and all the other Democratic senators and congressmen who voted to go to war with Iraq because they firmly beleived he had these weapons.

Look, I'll make this real simple for you. In 1991, the intelligence agencies downplayed how much WMD capability Saddam had. Then the war ended, and the UN inspectors went in, and they found out that Saddam had a whole lot of stuff they missed. Well, they weren't going to make THAT mistake again. If Saddam wasn't allowing inspections, was trying to hide stuff, it MUST be because he had these weapons again.

The fact is that a lot of Democrats wanted to take out Saddam just as bad as the Republicans did. One thing about history, we go into wars with a big yahoo, and at the end of them, we always wonder if it was worth it.

[–] mrnaturalsez 19 years ago

kyleb18940 stated - "We went into Kosovo to stop mass murder, with Clinton saying that there were mass graves, which we never found."

Inserting "mass graves in Kosova" in just about any search engine will give you myriad examples of mass graves, such as http://beqiraj.com/kosova/de/war_crimes/mass_graves/graves.asp or http://www.cry.org.uk/img/kosovo/wargraves.jpg.
I know there will be some argument now why articles like these are wrong, because as someone else previously mentioned, there is no arguing with these people, no matter what type of evidence you have. Personally, I have no problem with, or take no shame in amending a position I have taken, if the facts show otherwise. We're all human, and make mistakes, or sometimes jump to conclusions based on faulty data or our biases. I'd much rather be looked upon as someone like that - dumb enough to make mistakes, but smart enough to correct them, rather than one who is too stupid to know he might be mistaken, and then if he does find that out, doesn't have the intelligence or the character to admit it.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

Funny, that site didn't pop anything up for me. Came up unknown.

I agree with you completely. If one does make a mistake, they should admit it. Bush should definately come out and say something to the effect of, "Look, all the evidence we had was pointing to this, yada, yada, yada. Sorry. This shows we need to completely overhaul our intelligence..." something like that.

On the other hand, it isn't like Clinton did that, if that is what you are insinuating. He just lied about alot of things, until he got caught, then apologized. That isn't character, that's being a douche bag

[–] mrnaturalsez 19 years ago

"Funny, that site didn't pop anything up for me. Came up unknown" said kyleb 18940.
Actually, there is two sites there. Sorry, I should have separated the listing of the 2 sites better. There is an "or" between them (one site is just a picture with a bunch of skulls), and, because you said "site," rather than "sites," I suspect what may have happened is that you copied it all as one site, not seeing the or. I did copy and paste each of them from the posting, and they do work.
I agree Clinton lied about Monica, but when compared to the things other presidents have lied about, it's small potatoes. I have to imagine that probably most presidents have done similar acts. I'm sure they must get plenty of offers. "Doing" the most powerful man in the world has got to be pretty attractive for a woman, and I wonder how the men who criticize him would react to all those offers if they were in his place. Actually, for all the stress that must be on the President, a deed like Monica's might be considered a patriotic act. Yes, she's now got something to tell her grandkids, and how she served her country.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

I'm sure many presidents get offers. But you see, that is what seperates them. Good, decent men who are honest and truthful, especially to their wives, say NO!!! And besides, she was one of the few who offered. When she asked him why he didn't settle with Paula Jones, Clinton replied. "I can't. There would be hundreds of settlements". Now, i'm sure hundreds was an exaggeration, but that just says that Clinton was very found sexually harassing women. That isn't a good person. And cheating on ones wife isn't "patriotic". It's being a *beep*

So hopefully, you're comments were half-joking

[–] justenjones 19 years ago

It is historical fact that most US presidents have had affairs while in office. FDR died with his long time mistress at his bedside. Harding had women in and out of the white house, not to mention all of his othe scandals that came out after his death. I would much rather have a president that lies about a BJ than have one that covers up reasons for going to war and silences his critics.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

It's pretty simple.

Clinton's lies have been proven. Bush's haven't.
And a lie, is a lie, and that makes a person dishonest, no matter what it's about.

[–] Cine-Cheetah 19 years ago

I suupose you believe bush jr. is the only honest politician out there. It pains me to spend the energy to respond to you hard-headed narrow-minded republicans. You refuse to listen to facts and instead parrot the talking points doled out on Fox "news". I admit, it must be easy to be a republican - you don't have to think about the issues anymore. As more and more d.c. republicans break rank I wonder at what point your typical republican will start to see reality. Where does the blind loyalty lay - in the party or in georgie boy? For a recent example, what do you and your buddies think about Frist's difference on stem cell research? It must be a difficult transition for you - like listening to your parents fight, not knowing which one to side with. Don't worry - it's all about growing up. When you do grow up you will realize that the issues are much more difficult than the republican propaganda machine leads you to think. You are being manipulated but if you want to truth it's out there.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

Wow. I just like the assumptions you make about republicans in general. It's mind boggling how ignorant you are. But that's ok, that's just a symptom of being a democrat. Not only are you right, everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, stupid, or both. I'm more then happy to comment on politics, but only with people who make intelligent posts supporting their side, not dumbass ones like yours sir, who's only purpose is to take jabs at someone and competely generalize a political party and it's members.

And before you say anything, my comment before about democrats was joke. Wasn't sure if you were quick enough to catch that.

Grow up

[–] Cine-Cheetah 19 years ago

I've been debating with republicans for years and years. Not one of them has ever been able to carry on an intelligent conversation based on facts. My "generalization" is not only based on personal debates but also on countless hours of watching and listening to rush, hannity, o'reilly, etc. Therefore, my "generalization" is based on deep experience. The republican talking points you are spoon-fed provide you some catch phrases to shout out but when confronted one-on-one in a fact-based debate, you are unprepared and obiously so. You have been duped. You can still save yourself from a life of desperate gasping for air and eventual bitterness: don't toe either party line. Abandon the political parties and rely on fact instead. In today's political world you will undoubtedly end up voting for a democrat. That may change in the future as the parties change - but today's washington republicans are corrupt, greedy and self-serving. They need to be thoroughly humbled.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

My point still stands. You've added no new facts to the discussion, just more of the same. Talk about talking points and catch phrases. You're still being ignorant by generalizing an entire political party and view, and making assumptions about me and others, such as that we are so dumb that the ideas we have must have been "forced fed" to us, not that we are just as intelligent as others and came to either come up or adopt these views based on facts. I hate to sound like a broken record (although obviously you do), but you need to grow up. Hate the ideas and stances, but don't hate an entire group and reduce them to what a small minority are and what you think they are.

[–] Cine-Cheetah 19 years ago

I don't hate all republicans. I pity you. I believe that with full disclosure and understanding of the facts, the current incarnation of the repblican party would wither and die a very quick death. That is why the republican leadership relies so heavily on manipulation of the press, doctoring of the facts and smear campaigns.

I think republicans fall into 3 groups: those who (a) vote blindly for the party, (b) vote on one or two hot issues without regard for their own well-being overall, and (c) vote with their pockets without regard for the greater good. Perhaps surprisingly, I think the only rational reason to vote for a republican is with your pocket (and that only if you are in the top 0.1% richest Americans); republicans do not deliver what they promise and, ironically, screw precisely the same people who sing their praises the loudest.

Again, I do not generalize - I speak from empirical evidence. Over the many years I have been actively engaged, I have not found a single republican who could present a rational, fact-based foundation for his or her support for the party. 100% present reasoning that is without any basis in fact.

Present yours if you have the balls to risk it being picked apart.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

Ok, ready? I'm a republican. I do not A) vote blindly for my party. I look at issues and vote for the candidate that best supports my views. I've voted for independents, and once or twice a democrat. B) I don't do that either. In fact, I tend to ignore such hot button issues, as they are less important then the real, hidden issues that I vote for. C) I'm in the lower middle class, and do not vote with the thought that it will get me more money.

The problems you are listing above are not problems with the republican party. They are problems with politicians. Democrats also do not follow through with their plans. Just look at Clinton's health care plan ideas. Swore he'd do something about it, never did. And you're so called empirical evidence is just people you know. That would be like me saying "All gay people are flaming, because all the gay people I know are flaming".

Both parties rely on screwing people, manipulating the press and smear campaigns. Both sides did this horrendously during the last two presidental elections. The problems you are indicating are not exclusive to the republican party, and this is the point I made earlier. You're vilifying the republican party, while acting like the democrats walk on water and raise the dead. Both parties have their problems, and both parties suck. I will give you that the current incarnation of the republican party is grossly away from what is was founded on. But then again, so have the democrats.

[–] Cine-Cheetah 19 years ago

I do not agree that both parties are equally guilty in the business of smear; republicans are far dirtier - they make things up as opposed to exposing things that actually happened. I also do not blindly support my current party affiliation; I have voted for republicans and I do not claim that the democrats "walk on water". I am as critical of democrats as I am of republicans. Given that we agree that the current republican party is off-track, I am intrigued: why do you support them? Or do you merely oppose the current democrats? What are the core beliefs that draw you to the republican party? Why do you call yourself a republican? And, for the love of god, how could you ever support a corrupt, smug, moronic brat like bush jr?!

I wonder what it would take to make someone like you admit that you were wrong about the bush jr. admin - if it were proved that he intentionally misled us into war? Would you still give him a pass if he told us that he believed it was for the greater good? What if we discovered indisputible evidence that dick cheney was making deals behind closed doors to help his energy buddies and set himself up for his life after politics? What if it is proved that rove did intentionally "out" plame? What if bush jr knew about it? What if bush jr explicitly approved rove's course of action? What if we found evidence that the elections were fixed? the list goes on - but even if none of that plays out, one thing is certain, the world is a much worse place entirely because bush jr. was declared our false president. before bush jr I was infinitely optimistic about the direction the world was heading - today I have a deep fear for our future.

[–] kyleb18940 19 years ago

I am republican because I stand for what the republican party was founded on. Personal responsibilty, pure capitalist economy, small federal gov't, individual rights above all, etc. My views would tend to fall into line more with the current libertarian party. However, I don't classify myself as a libertarian, as the party should be obsolete, because those views should be the ones of the current republican party, but sadly, they aren't. I am a republican because of those views, so in a sense, I am a classical republican, not a neo republican. And how can I support Bush? Because i'd rather have him in office, with all his flaws (not the ones you named, as he isn't corrupt or smug, but, for example, his wanting to extend the Americans with Disabilites Act, the bankruptcy law passed a year ago,his handling of the Terri Shiavo case, etc) because he stands for a small federal gov't, returning tax money to the people, things that need to be done, and i'd rather have him then a *beep* democrat who'll jack up prices, let us get *beep* by terrorists and the UN, and *beep* all over the constitution under the guise of "regulation", and spend my money on *beep* social programs.

Now, to answer your second part, if all of that was proven, that he intentionally lied, and that Cheney made illegal deals, etc, then yes, I would be with you in wanting him punished for breaking the law. However, none of that will hapen, or is even criminal.
A)He didn't lie to get us into war. Even if he is dumb, as you say, one thing is certain: If he did lie, how the *beep* did he expect to explain it? If i'm a cop who lies about the contents of a drug house in order to secure a warrent, I have to expect that questions will be asked of me why there weren't any drugs. The same goes with Bush about the WMDS. It was bad intelligence, Russia and England intelligence agencies said that same thing ours did.

b)Unless Cheney's so-called deals are illegal, who cares? He needs to set himself up after politics, life isn't free. You're just one those loser liberals who probably hates big business.

C)If Plume was intentionally outed, then they should all go to jail. But he wasn't, it was a stupid slip, and Rove should be fired for it.

D)Dude, GET THE *beep* OFF THE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!! You hate Bush, fine. I'm not telling you to like him. BUT HE *beep* WON BOTH TIMES, FAIR AND SQUARE!!! Grow the *beep* up. You're boys lost, get over it. You're like some grade schooler who lost and then claims "no fair, no fair!!". Both of those elections have been looked at up and down, and not a shred or iota of evidence has surfaced that anything illegal or fixed went on. Bush won the electoral college, he's president, grow up and get the *beep* over it.

As for the world being worse off and you being scared, well, that just proves your a moron. Our planet and world and future survived the likes of Nixon, Harding and FDR, it will most certainly survive Bush, even if half of what you say is true. Keep things in *beep* perspective.

[–] Cine-Cheetah 19 years ago

bush jr doesn't stand for anything except that which will get the republicans more votes, more power and more money - by hook or by crook. he IS corrupt and smug - not to mention arrogant and condescending.

Americans with Disabilities Act? in one breath you say that you support a pure capitalist economy then this? you should be condemning the ADA as a regulatory burden on the economy. you make no sense.

And what about bush jr's reduction in veterans' benefits? do you not see the disconnect between touting himself as a supporter of the military and screwing the men who are injured for life or die in his self-serving illegal war?

individual rights? that is the democrats' issue, not the republicans'. republicans are for corporate freedom and individual regulation - democrats are for individual freedom and corporate regulation. psst - i think you're in the wrong party

small federal gov't? he says that he stands for small government but the government is much larger than it has ever been! federal spending has increased by 25% since he was appointed president.

the bankruptcy law? this will make it impossible for some to realize the american dream and instead live the rest of their lives under the pressure of huge financial companies who are already taking advantage of the underprivileged and reaping huge windfall profits of billions of dollars every year. not coincidentally, they are huge contributors to bush jr.

Terri Shiavo? that was an obvious nod to the religious right who have supported him. that was pure politics.

returning tax money to the people? what money?! with the money he has spent on this illegal war in iraq, none is left to return. that money of OURS could have been spent to solve many of OUR country's biggest problems. but no - we, our children and our childrens' children will have to repay this debt while iraq is reconstructed and bush and cheney's buddies are tacking on billions to their tax-free rewards. the objective of bush jr and the other neocons is to practically bankrupt the US government so we will be forced to give up on social security and other financial safety nets. under republicans we will end up like brazil - a tiny upper class with the rest in desperate poverty spiraling deeper and deeper into an abyss of crime just to survive.

democrats jack up prices? what about gas prices under bush jr for one thing of many? you don't have a leg to stand on here.

did you forget that we were attacked under bush jr because he disregarded the threat of terrorism passed along by the clinton admin?

(a) it was not bad intelligence - it was MADE UP intelligence. manufactured by the bush jr admin. he didn't have to worry about consequences - all he had to do was fool enough people. oops, no WMDs - but now that we're in we can't leave. they knew what they had to do to make it happen.

(b) so you don't mind what cheney does as long as it's not technically illegal? even from you, I find that hard to believe and, if true, irresponsible of you as an american. you and bush jr have a much lower standard for behavior of our public servants than I. we are paying them to serve us - not themselves.

(c) do you really believe, knowing what we know about rove (very intelligent and widely regarded as dirty by both parties), that it was just a coincidence that he outed plame days after wilson said something exposing bush's lies about "yellow cake" while trying to build a case for invading iraq? please - get your head out of your ass - or rather bush jr's.

(d) i only asked if you would still support him under those circumstances. and btw there has been lots of evidence to support the claim that the elections were fixed. but even if there was no funny business, as leader of the free world and supposed promoter of democracy, bush jr should have done everything possible to make sure there was no doubt that the election was fair. he did just the opposite.

and, in closing, i am certainly not a moron. if you believe that just because we have survived scandal in the past, we will be ok no matter what happens, then you are a fool. bush jr has turned the entire world against us and we are fighting an unnecessary, illegal war in iraq while ignoring the war against terrorism. meanwhile there are nuclear weapons floating around the world on the black market waiting to be bought and used against us. this while bush jr's entire rationale for terrorism is that terrorists "hate freedom". you should be petrified with fear of the bush jr admin.

you seem to me just another idiotic american who assumes that america will always be a superpower, no matter what we do wrong. the truth is that the US is a very young country and could collapse very easily. I see this admin of bush jr as a clear insight into how that could very well happen - and in my lifetime.

[–] tfilm78 18 years ago

Clinton's lie cost our nation millions in an unnceccary investigation, and there is unfalliable proof he lied.

The investigation was bait to provoke the lie. That's unacceptable.

There is absolutely no hard evidence that Bush lied, and in fact, evidence out there supports that he was MISTAKEN, not lying.

Welcome to 2006, where the evidence that Bush lied has been racking up.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]