"When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

"... that government becomes a government that preys on the people."

Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, speaking at Seattle's Town Hall 10/26/2005.

Wilson was the diplomat who the CIA sent to Niger to investigate rumors of nuclear preparation (WMD for Saddam). He reported back that the rumors were false.

The President continued to rely on unsupported beliefs about WMD's held by his inner circle of advisors, and cited WMD's in his State of the Union address and as the basis for invading Iraq.

Wilson complained that his report had been twisted to the opposite of what he said, which led to retaliation by the White House against him and his wife, Valerie Plame, then leading to the present crisis involving Cheney, Libby, and Rove.

See:
SeattlePI.com

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Why keep trying to throw things at Bush and hoping something will eventually stick? The left has been beating the "Bush lied" drum for years and they are approaching the pathetic. He's a lame duck now. Gore lost. Kerry lost. Get over it and move on. The way Bush is spending money like a liberal, you guys ought to love him. He has yet to veto one single spending bill.

When was the last time the American political left offered up a solution to any of the nations issues? In order for the left to succeed, America has to lose. Not an enviable position to be in. The left has to hope everything in Iraq fails so Bush and America will look bad. The left has to hope that the economy fails so America will look bad and they can attempt to appear as our savoirs in the next presidental election. No solutions offered in the meantime, only blame. The democrat party has become represented by George Soros, moveon.org and Michael Moore.

So, aside from whining "Bush lied" for the next 3-1/2 years like a broken record, how are you lefties going to make America better for everyone?

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I believe we did go to war based on lies. However I don't believe the President lied, but he is guilty of repeating lies that he believed to be true. Take a look back in time just a little bit farther. President Clinton also believed Sadaam had been building and storing WMD, President Clinton would be guilty of the same thing.

I had the honor of having a short private meeting with English Prime Minister John Major, at the time Clinton was our President, the Hon. Mr. Major told me that Iraq had WMD, so he is also guilty of repeating lies he believe to be true.

Take a look at the Democratic side of the House or the Senate, there was overwhelming admission, even among members of the Securtiy Council, the Foreign Relations Committee, etc that there were WMD and the belief was as strong on the Dems side as it was on the Rebups side. Then go to Europe, the French, who opposed the war, believed he had WMD as did the Russians.

So were there lies? Yes. Where did they come from? Probably Iraq and our intellegence gathering community. Further, if you look at the probe done by the British, you will see that they are ones who first published the information and sited a source. That source obviously proved to be unreliable, but that source was also used by other nations. This has been hashed out many times, Lies, yup. But not an organized effort to lie to mislead our nation into war by our leaders.


BTW, just for the record, it would be a great leap to say that I am a supporter of President Bush. I did vote for him, and still believe he was the better of 2 weak choices, but I'm not someone who considers him a particularily great President.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Cityboy said:

Why keep trying to throw things at Bush and hoping something will eventually stick? The left has been beating the "Bush lied" drum for years and they are approaching the pathetic. He's a lame duck now. Gore lost. Kerry lost. Get over it and move on. The way Bush is spending money like a liberal, you guys ought to love him. He has yet to veto one single spending bill.

...

So, aside from whining "Bush lied" for the next 3-1/2 years like a broken record, how are you lefties going to make America better for everyone?

Click to expand...

Whoa, a bit touchy aren't we. So he lied. I believe he did indeed lie. He knew he wanted to go to war and he twisted the data the way he wanted. That's what this is all about.

FYI: everyone who thinks bush lied is not a 'lefty'. are you a righty? I make my decisions based on what I believe. I don't follow either party whole heartedly; do you?

I think it is a big deal that he lied, and he and his staff should be called on it.
Some tried to impeach clinton, was it for the BJ? No, it was for lying about the BJ. In my book bush's lie hurt our nation much worse than the BJ lie.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Cityboy said:

When was the last time the American political left offered up a solution to any of the nations issues?

Click to expand...

Were you better off or worse off during the Clinton years? If you believe your were worse off, specifically how? No political fantasies please; I'm looking for facts.

Did the right wing impeach President Clinton for lying? Should Bush be impeached? If not, should the relevant members of his staff be indicted?

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I think that anyone who tries to prove that G.W. Bush intentionally lied about WMD would have an impossible task.

I think that anyone who tries to prove that a lot of politicians, on both ends of the political spectrum, on all 6 inhabited continents of the earth, were given bad information and went to war based on mistakes from the intelligence community who were lied to by their sources and simply passed on information that they beleive to be true but were in fact lies, would have an easy task.

Cut it however you want, Bush was essentially duped. As were the leaders of many other nations and members of all political parties.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

B_Skurka said:

So were there lies? Yes. Where did they come from?

Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia:

Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi: In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Much of this information has turned out to be false, and led to a recent falling out between him and the United States. Initially, Chalabi enjoyed a cozy political and business relationships with some members of the US government, including some prominent neoconservatives within the Pentagon. Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the PNAC, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. He also enjoyed considerable support among politicians and political pundits in the United States, most notably Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post, who held him up as a notable force for democracy in Iraq. Chalabi's opponents, on the other hand see him as a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq and with no effective power base...

Before the war, the CIA was largely skeptical of Chalabi...

Click to expand...

That skepticism, and reports that he was guilty of financial fraud, were widely available before the war. I knew about them. However, administration members like Wolfowitz and Perle convinced Bush that Chalabi was reliable. Bush himself, of course, is clueless. He has bragged that he doesn't read news reports; he only knows what his staff tells him.

What was the motivation for Wolfowitz and others to lie to the President? From news reports at the time, I'm convinced they believed they could take over the oil industry in Iraq. During the hearings in Congress that led up to approval of President Bush taking action, Wolfowitz testified that Iraqi oil proceeds would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq after the war. Of course, we have learned since that the Iraqi oil proceeds were pledged to paying the previous debts of Iraq, and the American people would have to pay for the rebuilding, starting with the $160 Billion and going up from there.

Who were the recipients of the "previous debt" of the Iraqis? The Russians, Germans and French, who had oil contracts with Iraq and Saddam. If one reads between the lines, the reason why those three countries refused to support our invasion was because they knew that our real intention was to take over the oil industry in Iraq and cancel their contracts.

It's interesting to me that after the invasion, we suddenly changed our reasons for invasion. It is my very strong belief that we were on the brink of WWIII, with the Germans, French and Russians willing to go to war with us and the British over the oil rights in Iraq. I believe that in time, we will discover that the most serious mistake made by the Bush administration was to believe those countries would cave in and let us steal the oil. I also believe it will be revealed that we suffered a major defeat in this regard, and that all the lives lost, and all the money spent, were as a result of the arrogance of Wolfowitz, Cheney and company.

Again, I do no blame Bush. He has no idea. Like Bob said, he was duped. However, it was widely known before he was elected that he was a prime candidate for being duped, most likely by his own people, just like the last dummy that was in office, Ronald Reagan.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

OkeeDon said:

Were you better off or worse off during the Clinton years?

Click to expand...

I'm far better off now than in the Clinton years. No comparison. I'm not big fan of Bush, but I shudder to think of where we would be now if Gore were in office on 9/11.

On "the last dummy in office"; come now, you don't count Clinton there?! The guy who topped Kennedy in his appetite for women and the leader of one of the most backward state governments in our country wouldn't qualify? Gees, how soon we forget. About the only thing I can say good about Clinton is that he didn't change. He was the same scoundrel after elected as he was before. The people got what they voted for, nothing more, nothing less. Also, at the point when Clinton was elected to office, this country had it's economic wheels spinning so hard that a stock market launch would have been hard to prevent. Your "dummy" took us from the Carter recession to an economic boom. You know, you can't take a recession/depression to an economic boom in a few short years any easier than you can stop a speeding freight train on a dime.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Your "dummy" took us from the Carter recession to an economic boom. You know, you can't take a recession/depression to an economic boom in a few short years any easier than you can stop a speeding freight train on a dime.

Click to expand...

It's truly amazing how people can see the same events in such different ways. The Reagan "boom" was completely accomplished with borrowed money. Give a hobo unlimited credit, let him buy anything he wants without having to worry about paying it back, and he'll look like he's enjoying an economic recovery, also.

Then. Clinton came along and proposed moderate tax increases. The Democratic congress voted for it all by themselves, with not a single Republican joining it. The nation went from a false "boom" based on borrowed money to a true boom based on paying as you go. The disastrous deficit from the Reagan/Bush years was wiped out, and we had a surplus for the first time in decades. The interest rates were reduced so far as a result that everyone had more money, even after paying the slight increase in taxes.

Then, along comes another dummy, the surplus is wiped out, the deficit is back, we're spending more while collecting less, the country is headed towards bankruptcy, we depend on foreign investments to keep us afloat, we don't dare offend the Saudis or the Chinese because their money is all that's supporting us, we make one disastrous decision after another (I see Harriet withdrew her nomination), our kids are geting killed in Iraq for nothing, and you think you're better off? Unbelievable.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Dare I point out that we have strayed far from the topic?

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

...but I shudder to think of where we would be now if Gore were in office on 9/11.

Click to expand...

This is another canard that I hear all the time, yet cannot figure out why people believe it would be so. How do you know?

All I hear is your prejudice speaking.

It's entirely possible we would have been better off with Gore; there is absolutely no way to know for certain.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

OkeeDon said:

It's truly amazing how people can see the same events in such different ways. Then, along comes another dummy, the surplus is wiped out, the deficit is back, we're spending more while collecting less, the country is headed towards bankruptcy, we depend on foreign investments to keep us afloat, we don't dare offend the Saudis or the Chinese because their money is all that's supporting us, we make one disastrous decision after another (I see Harriet withdrew her nomination), our kids are geting killed in Iraq for nothing, and you think you're better off? Unbelievable.

Click to expand...

First sentence, you are right, people see the same events opposite of each other... I believe Clinton, who was openly very anti military, and they reciprocated,,, who wouldn't act on certain problems, that he could have,, Mogadishu and refusing generals requests early on for equipment,they being refused and of course we know the outcome....
So far, I see democrats who are really lax in self defense, because they believe just about anything can be taken care of by summit talks, which rarely work out,,, and the final outcome are most of these wars or police actions that republicans have to initiate...As far as Iraq, kids getting killed, I'm still on the fence myself, as far as, the right thing?, why, and is oil the "real" cause and ultimate outcome... As far as better or worse between CLinton/Bush,, Yes by far,, Again read above how Clinton is anti military,, Well Don, that attitude and subsequent white house rules filtered on down to the VA system as a whole.. They are still trying to undo major problems that he created. It won't be completed in Bush's second term either.... I sit here truly in fear of another democratic president who will cut the system again.... Right this second a Barak Obama, rep from Illinois, is wreaking havoc on the VA system and putting extreme, very extreme hurt to many deserving veterans... Again, another never served, anti military democrat... I have been to the point for at least the last 10 years, that democrats / and republicans too,, holding office, read this senate/reps/ secretaries of various positions, (ie) state, defense, etc, etc and president/vice president, that have never served also haven't the right to destroy the only system in place. There are times under certain circumstances that I take this so seriously, I feel non military served democrats haven't the right to speak of, about., or vote in these particular circumstances..

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I believe Clinton, who was openly very anti military, and they reciprocated,,, who wouldn't act on certain problems, that he could have,, Mogadishu and refusing generals requests early on for equipment,they being refused and of course we know the outcome....

Click to expand...

On what basis do you state the Clinton was very anti-military? What problems could he have acted upon, but didn't? If I recall, he bombed the Sudan, bombed Al Queda bases in Afghanistan, and, of course, kept up the continual watch and occasional bombing in Iraq in the No-fly zone. As for Mogadishu, here is an excellent and unbiased summary of the events in Somalia. The quick facts are that George HW Bush placed the troops in Somalia. He predicted they would be home before Clinton's inauguration but, of course, he was wrong. As UN troops took over the job (with Clinton's full support), US troops were withdrawn. There were only 1200 troops left in Somalia when the Mogadishu event took place. This was all in keeping with Bush Sr.' s strategy, not Clinton's. After the bungled rescue, General Garrison took full responsibility. So, how do you get any anti-military on Clinton's part out of all this? Stick with facts, not prejudices.

I sit here truly in fear of another democratic president who will cut the system again.

Click to expand...

You know, you guys are going to have to get your act together better than this. Which is it, Democrats are tax and spend? Or, Democrats will cut the system again? You can't have it both ways. Oh, wait, yes you can -- we currently have a President who is cutting AND spending.

Try doing a Google search on "cuts in veterans administration". There are so many articles from so many sources detailing Bush's cuts, at a time when they are creating more veterans in need of those services, that I can't possibly cite them all. Here's a quick sample, "The administration has proposed charging some veterans a $250 annual fee for access to medical services provided by the Veterans Administration and more than doubling the copayment for prescription drugs from $7 to $15. The new fees would apply to single veterans making more than $26,000 annually and married veterans making about $30,000 annually. In addition, the Bush administration budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted." Now, do a Google search for Clinton cuts in the VA. You won't find much -- the VA budget increased almost 32% under Clinton. Facts, not prejudices.

Right this second a Barak Obama, rep from Illinois, is wreaking havoc on the VA system and putting extreme, very extreme hurt to many deserving veterans...

Click to expand...

I wasn't familiar with Obama's record on the VA, so I did a Google search on "obama veterans" and could find nothing except his criticism of the VA for cuts, especially the treatment of PTSD. Facts, or prejudice?

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

OkeeDon said:

...Then, along comes another dummy, the surplus is wiped out, the deficit is back, we're spending more while collecting less, the country is headed towards bankruptcy, we depend on foreign investments to keep us afloat, we don't dare offend the Saudis or the Chinese because their money is all that's supporting us, we make one disastrous decision after another (I see Harriet withdrew her nomination), our kids are geting killed in Iraq for nothing, and you think you're better off? Unbelievable.

Click to expand...

Okay, you don't think this frickin' war is a major factor in taking out any surplus and adding a huge deficit? Do I care about the people of Iraq? Yes. Do I care about the people of Iraq more than I do about the life of my son, the life of my neighbors, the life of you, more than our economic stability? No way in hell!!! Sorry, but I'm sure it isn't a popular thing to say, but I do say to heck with those who are trying to kill us while we are losing the lives of our kids and bankrupting our economy. I am very much opposed to fighting a politically correct war. War is war. It is ugly, and the objective is to kill more of their people, and tear up more of their things than they do to ours. Sorry, but I'm not into doing that for the people of Iraq. However, doing nothing, or having summit meetings about the terrorist acts of 9/11 is just as unacceptable. I'm more of the sort of saying "if you hit us, we will hit back 10 times as hard". I'm not in to trying to occupy and reform a place when we are not allowed to take off the gloves.

Bob, off subject, but fun.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

WOW. Both Bill & Hillary Clinton were blatant about their dislike and distrust of the military. And the folks in the armed forces recipricated in kind. The fact that he held his nose and used the military on occasion does not mean he was not openly hostile toward it.


Now to answer a prior question. I am far better off, and I am pretty darn sure my employees would agree that they are far better off, under the current admistration than under the prior Clinton administration.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I'm far better off and make considerably more money than I did when Slick Willy was Pres. I don't give a damn about Slick anymore. He's history. Can't change the past.

Clinton wasn't anti-military??? Well...alrighty then


There was no surplus during Clinton's term for Bush to spend. It never materialized. It was a "projected" surplus. It never existed. But the left will never state it truthfully.

Bush is not a conservative. Other than having a set of testicles, I have a hard time distinguishing him from a Dem.

I'm not touchy, Doc, nor am I your typical "righty". I am a conservative Libertarian. Figure that one out The left will never prove Bush lied because he did not lie. Bill Clinton said Sadam had WMD. Kerry said Sadam had WMD. The Bush haters tend to intentionally forget that fact.

The major problem with the "Bush lied" klan is they are still pissed that bush beat Gore in the first place. They just can't let it go and focus on the future. The Dems have a perfect opportunity to focus on solutions and get out the message for what they actually stand for. (What do the Dems stand for?? )Instead its Bush lied ad-nausia.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Cityboy said:

I
Clinton wasn't anti-military??? Well...alrighty then


There was no surplus during Clinton's term for Bush to spend. It never materialized. It was a "projected" surplus. It never existed. But the left will never state it truthfully.

Bush is not a conservative. Other than having a set of testicles, I have a hard time distinguishing him from a Dem.

I'm not touchy, Doc, nor am I your typical "righty". I am a conservative Libertarian. Figure that one out The left will never prove Bush lied because he did not lie. Bill Clinton said Sadam had WMD. Kerry said Sadam had WMD. The Bush haters tend to intentionally forget that fact.

The major problem with the "Bush lied" klan is they are still pissed that bush beat Gore in the first place. They just can't let it go and focus on the future. The Dems have a perfect opportunity to focus on solutions and get out the message for what they actually stand for. (What do the Dems stand for?? )Instead its Bush lied ad-nausia.

Click to expand...

Damn, I wish I would have said at least some of that! BTW, I also consider myself a concervative Libertarian.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Not directed at Bob, because he has already said he has serious questions about this war. And, I'll drop Dargo from the target list, because he just said that nobody in Iraq is worth the lives of our kids.

But, I hear all you folks trying to make up for Bush by saying that other people, Democrats and the Brits, for example, also believed that Saddam had WMD.

Excuse me, but what the f--- does that have to do with anything? The simple fact of the matter is, and I said this at the time, is that even if he DID have WMD, he was not a threat to the United States. We had his butt covered! We protected the no-fly zone. We overflew his operations on a daily basis. His troops couldn't fart without us smelling it. If he had tried anything to hurt the US, we could detect and stop it. Or, in the far-fetched possibility that he DID get away with something, we could obiterate his butt in minutes. In short, there was NO REASON to invade Iraq; they presented NO THREAT to us.

Everything about Iraq, the brave kids killed, the innocent Iraqis killed as collateral damage, the money spent, the loss of our reputation, the damage to our self-esteem as finally being the preemptive attacking force, and the recruitment of additional terrorists as a reaction to our action, all of it is tied to the massive mistakes made by THIS administration.

I don't give a rat's patootie if the Pope believed there were WMD, that's just the excuse they used -- for a very short time until they were proven ludicrously wrong, and they invented new excuses. I don't think we'll ever know the REAL reason they went to war. I suspect for Wolfowitz and company it was arrogance and the possibility of controlling the oil. I suspect for Cheney and Rumsfield it was their last hurrah at being the big cheeses, and for Cheney, the possibility of controlling the oil. I suspect for Bush it was because they threatened his Daddy, and becuase his Daddy's bungling that left Saddam in office probably cost him the election, and he saw the opportunity to do better than Daddy. Besides, it was the possibility of controlling the oil.

Regardless of what the reasons, the simple fact is that they were wrong -- horribly, tragically wrong -- and we are now paying the price, and will continue to pay the price. I say continue, because now that we are there, it would do more harm than good to leave without achieving some sort of positive result.

As far as the war affecting the deficits, of course it is. Especially in the face of the stupidity of cutting taxes in the course of a war, cutting taxes in the face of natural disasters, cutting taxes in the face of need in our own country. Did anyone happen to notice the amount that was pledged to rebuild the Gulf states after Katrina? Did anyone else notice the "coincidence" that it was slightly more than the initial amount requested for Iraq?

This administration has been an absolute disaster, and is continuing to shoot itself in the foot. Folks are finally starting to realize it, and approval ratings are in the cellar. There are no excuses, and no fantasy thinking, and no blaming of "lefties" that will cover it up.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

There was no surplus during Clinton's term for Bush to spend. It never materialized. It was a "projected" surplus. It never existed. But the left will never state it truthfully.

Click to expand...

I guess I have to ask you to support that statement with facts. My facts say that when income is greater than spending, there is a surplus. And, during the last couple of years of Clinton's administration, income was higher than spending.

Now, that is regarding the budget, which each year has either a deficit (spending more than we take in) or a surplus (collecting more than we spend). It not a "surplus" in the National Debt, which is the cumulative amount we owe because of previous deficits. In the case of the National Debt, it either exists or it doesn't, because it's been paid off.

During the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations, the National Debt rose from approximately $1 Trillion (the cumulative amount of all the deficits in the entire history of the nation) to approximately $4 Trillion. That's because the Reagan and Bush administrations ran such enormous deficits that they increased the National Debt by 400% in just 12 years!

Under Clinton, the deficits were pared down each year, creating smaller and smaller deficits, until in the final year or two, we actually had a surplus, and a portion of the National Debt was paid off. It was the first time in something like 50 years (I could look it up) that there was a surplus. No matter what you claim, you cannot undo the fact that there was a surplus. It is true that the total reduction of the National Debt was a projected number, but the Debt was so high, it would have been impossible to pay it all back in a shorter time.

While the war and other unexpected spending has contributed, the fact is that the current Bush administration threw all that away, out of the window, in favor of tax cuts. They didn't work under Reagan or Bush I, and they don't work under Bush II. They appear to work, but what actually happens is we create even higher interest payments, and higher dependence on foreign investments, and eventually cut our own throats for a short term gain. Of course, Republicans are famous for that.

Then, when there actually was a national emergency and a reason to spend, Bush II simply borrows more and continues to cut taxes. This makes about as much sense as one of you saying, "I need to give my sister some money, so I'll quit my job and borrow it from a loan shark".

I truly don't understand how anyone can defend such stupidity.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Very well said Don.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I'm going to turn your question back on you Don. Show me the money. Show me the budget numbers where the treasury was actually in the black. You can't because it never happened. The Dems know this. They went from calling it what it actually was: a "projected surplus" to calling it a surplus as if it actually existed. The economy was already going into recession midway through Clinton's second term. The dot.com bust came along and sped up the inevitable.

The recession was simply the current economic cycle playing out. Clinton did not cause it. Bush did not cause it. Clinton did not cause the dot.com boom either. He just happened to be in office when the boom peaked. Economic cycles will continue regardless which party is in the whitehouse. I do know this current recession could have been a lot worse and unemployment a lot higher if we had gotten a punish-the-rich tax and spend leftist at the helm. Bush spends like a liberal, but at least he has the sense not to punish America's economic achievers who make the economy work.

The war in Iraq? One billion muslims are not worth the life of even one American 18 year old buck private soldier. That's what rockets and daisy-cutters are for. I say bomb these terrorist supporting nations into oblivion using all means available and bring the troops home and utilize them to police our own borders. But I do believe had Gore or Kerry had gotten into office we would be cowering in a corner seeking France's approval for every step we took.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Ok,

I guess since I haven't been around for a few days and now just reading this thread and trying to make sense of it all.

First we are talking about lieing and now about the deficiet. As far as lying, I don't think Bush ever lied, he may have been given some wrong information and now has to stick with it. But I also believe if anybody here thinks for one minute that Iraq did not or does not have WMD I think you should think twice. Past Presients, Vice Presidents etc etc have believed Sadam has this information. Clinton himself believed. Go back the Bush Senior he believed and still does today. As for Clinton, not only did he lie about his BJ but he defamed the office of the President of the United States. We all know of the famous picture of John Jr, underneath the desk of President Kennedy, now every thinks of Monica or whoever else underneath there. There is no excuse for what he did in that office. If he went out then it was his business, but the fact he did it in "Our Office" is a disgrace.

As far as we being better off during the Clinton years, yes I believe every body was better off during them years. But what did Clinton do to make it so well for everyone?? The County is a large business and nothing he did made it good for us, the majority of the success came in part from previous Presidents. Yes, Clinton may be responsible for some it but surely not all of it. When Carter was in and then Reagan came around it was not until the second term that we started to see things good. And also I being in business saw the down turn in the last year of Clintons term. So who knows where we would be right now or what person would have been the best President.

Should we be in Iraq?? That is a tough one and to this day I am not sure what is the best answer. We can't ever let another World Trade Towers incident happen again. I think they should show them planes going into the towers on TV at least once a day. We can not allow our people to forget what happened that day.

Ok hit me all

murph


Geez, I usually stay out of these debates!!

Oh yeah, why is it so that no one thinks 911 was wrong. We don't talk about what happened to us, it was ok to kill the amount of people it did and now every one blames Bush for fighting for our Freedom.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Dang, I had the best damn reply written that I've ever created, with budget figures, facts out the gazombie, unassailable logic...and our electricity came back on for the first time since the hurricane. I got so excited, I jumped up, starting unhooking and untangling all the extension cords running through the house and plugging stuff back into house power -- 2 refrigerators, 2 microwaves, 2 TVs, satellite receiver, half a dozen chargers for cell phones, lanterns and such, the DSL modem and the wireless router...and the computer. Without saving the response of the century.

But, you know, I'm so happy, y'all get off easy -- at least for tonight. Tomorrow, after I've had a comfortable night's sleep without generators roaring all through the neighborhood, and a hot shower, I may re-write the whole thing. Y'all will be grateful, I'm sure...

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

know what guys? this president, mo matter what political aff he is , fornicated up., he lied or agreed to the lies, and he oral intakes ( in plain english HE SUCKS)

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

frank_f15 said:

know what guys? this president, mo matter what political aff he is , fornicated up., he lied or agreed to the lies, and he oral intakes ( in plain english HE SUCKS)

Click to expand...

Okay, what do you think of Condi Rice?

And, no, the idea of "sucking" isn't why I asked. From what I've read, she is has a very good formal education, she is very intelligent, she happens be a "she", she happens to be an African American, she is not sombody's puppet, and she really doesn't care for Hillary.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Personally I think she is an amazing woman and would love to see her as a VP canditate in the next election cycle.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

B_Skurka said:

Personally I think she is an amazing woman and would love to see her as a VP canditate in the next election cycle.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my thoughts and my best guess where she will be.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

Condi is twenty times the women Hilliary is. Condi would be capable of running the country where Hilliary wouldn't know the first thing to do.

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

I heard that the race will be Hillery vs. Condi..... And speaking of lies..... I am not certain that Condi didn't lie to the Congress when she gave testimony a while ago. It is just that it isn't politically correct to bring this matter to the surface.Washington Post....

Re: "When a government takes the country to war on lies and misinformation,"

thcri said:

Condi is twenty times the women Hilliary is. Condi would be capable of running the country where Hilliary wouldn't know the first thing to do.

Click to expand...

Hillary is twenty times the women Condi is. Hillary would be capable of running the country where Condi wouldn't know the first thing to do.

What makes your statement any more accurate than mine?