OT: Should We Impeach Bush Or Just Jail Him?

[schmee]

it does boil down to how many thousands of people died just for an election. it's funny, i never thought in a million years that i'd come to regret the day we lack someone like a Bill Clinton in office. the irony is, the person who finally makes Bill Clinton look like an honest, sincere, fiscally-conservative spender - is the very stooge that we trashed Clinton over to make look good in the first place. the pathetic part is watching all the people in america who aligned their ego against clinton (or "with" the GOP, as is too often interpretted to be the case) sit around and try to defend the actions of these criminals. after months of treating anyone who disagreed with these people "traitors" - just outright blatantly calling Americans traitors - it is especially pathetic. but one nice thing about american politics. it swings just like the pendulum, and this time, the whole apparatus almost fell over. i think much like the 30 years following vietnam (not comparing the conflict) - the conservative proof is again going to suffer the embarassment of criminal past brought about via ideological zealousness. and when the conservatives laugh at the assertion of criminal - they completely fail to see the difference in a crime that helps an individual, and a crime that affects the lives of millions, billions, or perhaps (to these minds) even more important, the very legitamacy of their own nation. men of destiny scare the shit out of me. because they'll kill anyone to achieve what they believe to be their God-given right. i think clinton is a man of destiny, but one that learned how not to rely on the military/indutrial complex to achieve it - quite a feat for the modern american politician. and i think one that told the world - okay, it's time to change and put down the swords for a bit. and it actually worked incrediblly well. countless terror attempts were at the same time foiled, and perhaps most important of all - it was nearly impossible for someone to stand up and say that the US was an oppresive Empire with fascist tendencies, and a ruling body that would love nothing mroe than to eliminate most of the remaining laws that prevent our Republic from actually being an Empire in law as well as sentiment. to consider how silly this destiny thing is: let's imagine i wake up one day and decide it's my God-given right to make a fortune selling crack to your kids. does that belief that give me the right to force you to tolerate my crack sales? even more ridiculous, when i come barging through your door on the accusation that you have tried to undermine my ability to manufacture and distribute crack - are you going to be very happy when i shoot your mother in the process of liberating you from the evil household that would seek to attack [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan110.html]My Interests[/url] ? i think we witness this dynamic in the neoconservative concept of what exactly the American state is. only instead of crack, we could substitute petroleum. Bush? he always was, and always will be a fool. he's just the Brand Name. he's not even the spokesperson. so impeaching him is like imprisoning Ronald McDonald because McDonald's board decided he should do the next series of ads naked. Dick Cheney on the other hand, is [url=http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16283]the man with many strings in his hands[/url] . you want to talk about impeachment or jail? wolfowitz, rumsfeld, cheney - the guys who've been around since Nixon who have no idea how to manage an economy without selling a lot of "defense" or petroleum equipment - and the same guys who've been tinkering with the whole damned thing. the same guys who tranferred the people in the FBI out of their positions of respoinsibility when they suggested that terrorists were going to hit us hard and soon. the exact same guys (individuals, we're talking about less than 10 people) who met with Saddam Hussein more than anyone in the US government. the same guys who looked the other way when saddam told us he was going to attack kuwait (famously, a client-state of British Petroleum, sine Britain let go of the area as a colony, much like our own Saudi Arabia). but when you listen to the folks who remain firmly in denial with their egos attached to Mr. Bush's success - i think the most compelling thing is how little of any of this history they have any clue about. they seem to think that instead some magic world appeared (usually explained away by blaming clinton somehow, which at this point does not help their logic one bit) - where Evil Doers suddenly freaked out on PCP one day and just decided to start murdering people for the hell of it. no, not for the hell of it, but because they are jealous. in ten years time, i am extremely confident that this viewpoint will be held in as much esteem as that of the john birch society. scared, paranboid little people with chips on their shoulders, and an inflated sense of ego that believes itself more deserving of the world's resources than the natives, who should just eat cake and be happy. thing is, the demos are even more pathetic. clinton was the only form of organization in that entire jumble of fame-seekers and glitterati - the entire DNC leadership has to go before they ever become a viable force in politics again. doesn't mean they won't take office in protest votes against the criminal GOP. criminals or incompetence - it's always the same choice in american politics, you'd think at some point we'd learn. my money is on the incompetence next time - the criminals have been on a luck streak that is due for upset. i think we're already witnessing that upset. all this time people said, "he better not make the same mistake his daddy did", well i think he actually managed to out do his daddy with the exact same thing. but that's not surprising when you remember that the same camp pulling daddy's strings pull junior's too - makes sense it would be more of the same, only a more dangerous, more costly, more glorious failure. at least Bush Snr only lost things America could replenish fairly quickly and with a bit of american elbow grease - lovingly applied throughout the 90s. but the damage done to our reputation, our own national ego, the divisions in our country - a lot of these things are possibly irreplaceable, and we'll be lucky to recover fully from them. i'm glad to see more people speaking out and not being brow beaten by the simplistic, feel-good sloganism of the neocon media machine, i suspect the old tradition of piling on the GOP's extremism is going to return to vogue very soon, if it hasn't already. it's one thing to attack the american people - "the sleeping giant". it's another thing to cheat them. mornin'. :wave:

[alcohol]

What evidence is there that our intelligence services are reliable or can be trusted? Where are the WMD? or maybe it's the intelligence of this administration which is a mess. Disgusting!

[schmee]

well, before 2000, our intelligence services worked reasonably well actually, in that they managed to stop many attacks, and be somewhat conscious of the potential for these things. i have little time for this notion that shaking a bigger stick at your enemy is going to resolve anythingother than making you feel superior at the time for doing so. it just begs for more more conflict. and i think it's pretty clear that in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan that the goal was not liberation, protecting women's rights or a stoking of democracy - but rather to maintain Halliburton's, Bechtel's and Unocal's timelines in Asia. these projects are expensive, you know? and that's the trouble here, no one can believe the US's motives are sound, moral or reasonable. doesn't matter whether they are or not at that point - what's clear is we cannot be believed. that's no way to rule a globe, and why i feel a lot less safe than i did 4 years ago. but then there's the matter of 90% of my friends and family being unemployed - gives you a lot more time to sit around and get knowledgeable about these things, discuss them openly over the net and on the street, and really come to understand how this world got so fucked up, so quickly. but if folks want to keep talking about "National Interests" and "honest" politicians who may sound simple, but who have achieved some kind of moral victory in stupidity - then go ahead, as you would tell me, "our soldiers are fighting abroad for your right to free speech". i may disagree as to why our soldiers are being killed everyday now by a populace getting more and more hostile - but i do agree that the motivations for our soldiers' incredible sacrifice, is to defend the concept of free speech, so while i may find it repulsive (often because it's adopting a position of less free speech), i delight in being in a country where it can be said. what i fear is that the same folks want to change that because they are sick of the "Great Liberal Conspiracy", and will do anything to see it defeated, cutting their arm off to spite their hand. nevermind that is long been known that along with the various lingo of conservatry, the conspiracy is a perfectly legitimate one that the GOP engages in itself everyday. it's called politics. politics is a conspiracy. conspiracy is only a taboo word in american society because it was the term used to define and demonize fringe groups and extremism. but by definition, any group of people who get together and make a plan is a conspiracy. any company. any family. it's when that plan is scary that we need take note. and the scary Liberal conspiracy to educate, communicate and work together is a lot less frightening to me than the GOP conpiracy of Manifest Destiny (oh, and only if you're already part of the crew, or happen to superficially fit a part needed for PR purposes in the coming years). man, great coffee. :wave:

[SFOracle]

[quote] I would suggest taking a deep breath and "THINKING" about this: We had a mess of an intelligence community. Prior to Mr. Bush. We were attacked by terrorists that planned the attacks, went to school in our country, learned how to fly, managed to get in, go to school, learn how to attack us and then do it...all prior to Mr. Bush being elected. [/quote]We have a mess of an intelligence community now, unless you thing the intelligence that led to our invasion of Iraq was steller. With the Defense Department re-analyzing the CIA's analysis to emphasize the (non) threat from Iraq. The IAEC was able to determine rather quickly that the letters alleging Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were forged, but the combined intelligence assets of Italy, the UK and the US were unable (or unwilling) to do this before the (non) evidence was cited in the President's State of the Union Address. [quote] We have had open borders for many years. We have been so afraid of hurting some minority group's feelings that we won't profile the bad guys. We have laws on the books that are over fifty years old (wire tap laws, for example) that simply tie the hands of those charged with protecting us. [/quote]Being locked up without charges, no access to legal counsel and held annonymously and indefinitely is a little more greivous than "hurting feelings". But I suppose this is okay as long as it's not happening to you. What does the age of the laws have to do with anything? The Consitution is over 200 years old - so I guess we should update this. Those inconvenient (for law enforcement) protections of free speech, due process and against unlawfull search and seizure are simply too restrictive. [quote] Thinking a change of administration would give us back our "freedom" is simply silly. Doing nothing with the terrorist threat for years only made them bold and led to 9/11. You would like to return to that attitude? Leave them alone? How about a big Arabic group hug? [/quote]There was plenty of intelligence pre-9/11 to indicate that a major attack was being planned. The failure was not in the intelligence but in the Administration. The inteligence was either suppressed or not acted upon by Bush appointed officials in the Justice Department and Department of Defense. See: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html So we have gone from ignoring intelligence to inventing inteligence. And who suffers? Anyone who doesn't look like your run of the mill texas redneck. This administration has done more to undermine civil liberties than any other administration in my lifetime (I was born in '63). Nixon's indescretions were a trifle compared to Bush's. Is an Arabic group hug different than an American one?

[Saint Johnny B]

Well several of the Nixon gang spent time behind bars. The Bush gang of criminals is no different. It's always the same with these kinds of morons, it's always about the money, the territory and resources to be exploited, the power, and the uncontrolled greed. They murder, lie, steal, and cheat to get what they want and line their own pockets. Then they drive around in gold-plated limos and live in fancy mansions. Ken Lay of Enron Scandal fame was the biggest contributer to Geo Bush and let Bush fly around in a private jet to campaign. You'll never wonder where the money went when you fly around with Bush as president. The money trail leads right to the White House, and it stinks to high heaven. What we have in control of our government is a Racketeering, Corrupt, Inluenced, Organization which is a crime under the federal law. We can give Bush and Cheney and Lay a fair trial Texas style. Then we can "jail 'em all." Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did.

[Alon]

Haha, I feel sorry for all you losers. Bush will probably end up getting re-elected, so get prepared to spend the next four years whining, bitching & moaning, while you make your pathetic posts. :p

[Dogfur]

[quote]Originally posted by Alon: [b]Haha, I feel sorry for all you losers. Bush will probably end up getting re-elected, :p [/b][/quote]Just for accuracy, this statement implies that GWB was elected. No matter what side of the fence you are on politically, this lack of factual consideration only adds to confusion.

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Haha, I feel sorry for all you losers. [/quote]Hey, who sent you? Osama Bin Laden?

[alcohol]

quote: Haha, I feel sorry for all you losers. So I guess you support the idea of going to war to elect Republicans? Cause we now know it wasn't to find weapons of mass destruction!

[Alon]

[quote]Originally posted by Dogfur: [b]Just for accuracy, this statement implies that GWB was elected. No matter what side of the fence you are on politically, this lack of factual consideration only adds to confusion.[/b][/quote]Ok, i'd like to ammend my original statement. Not only are some of you losers, but indeed some of you are sorelosers. Get over it, the previous election is ancient history. alon

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol: [b]So I guess you support the idea of going to war to elect Republicans?[/b][/quote]Not me, I only support bombing Iraq to deflect attention away from cum-stained dresses. :wave:

[Alon]

[quote]Originally posted by StoneinaPond: [b]Hey, who sent you? Osama Bin Laden?[/b][/quote]I think you have it the other way around. I think you will find more terrorist sympathizers on your side of the spectrum. I'm all in favor of hunting down and erradicating the scum, however some people are trying to make this job difficult. alon

[Griffinator]

Wow. Seems as though the GOP supporters are following Bush's (and Rush's) lead. Post stupid, irrelevant snipes instead of engaging in real debate or answering thoughtful statements with thoughtful retorts. Look out, America - there's a disease worse than AIDS, worse than SARS, worse than Ebola infecting the nation - it's called Bush Fever - people who become infected develop speech and thought impediments that reduce them to blubbering one-liner machines with no capacity for intelligent discussion either verbally or in text!

[sbrock1san.rr.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Griffinator: [b]Wow. Seems as though the GOP supporters are following Bush's (and Rush's) lead. Post stupid, irrelevant snipes instead of engaging in real debate or answering thoughtful statements with thoughtful retorts.[/b][/quote]Hmmm. I checked both pages of this thread and I didn't see your debate or thoughtful statements anywhere. Wake me up when you have something to say Griff. :bor:

[Dogfur]

[quote]Originally posted by Alon: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Dogfur: [b]Just for accuracy, this statement implies that GWB was elected. No matter what side of the fence you are on politically, this lack of factual consideration only adds to confusion.[/b][/quote]Ok, i'd like to ammend my original statement. Not only are some of you losers, but indeed some of you are sorelosers. Get over it, the previous election is ancient history. alon[/b][/quote]Perhaps you may consider a bit of research into the issue before you add a name-calling response, maybe even lending an air of severely lacking credibility to your posts. My original post of the fact that GWB was not elected to the office of POTUS stands accurate. When you refer to his re-election that would only be possible if he were to run and win an election for the office of governor of the state of Texas. This is not a politically debatable issue. There is no "getting over" our election process being corrupted and abused by dishonest people of any political persuasion, nor is it ancient history. Surely you see that the integrity of our election system must supercede any "winning or losing" arguments or we all lose,sore or not, in a very big way.

[Alon]

There's absolutely nothing to debate here, when the opening thread is nothing but biased hogwash and unrealistic fantasies posted by some disgruntled person. If for example I engage in a conversation with a 10 year old child, I alter my vocabulary and demeaner to fit the situation, so that we may communicate on the same level. I see no reason, why this thread would be any different, from the above mentioned example. Therefore my "cheap" snipes. This thread doesn't deserve any better. Anyhow, i have no desire to engage in any further debate on this thread. I've said what I had to say. :wave:

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] however some people are trying to make this job difficult. [/quote]And that would be......? I will grant you one thing. There have not been any further terrorist attacks [i]on American soil[/i] since 9/11. However, the other side of that coin is that there hadn't been a similar attack on US soil since, how long? 1941? In the meantime Osama Bin Laden has not been found, Saddam Hussein has not been found, no WMD have been found in Iraq and the US army is not having a good day there either. On top of that, the level of anti-American sentiment is still high around the globe. And locally, the economy stinks! You're just as much a loser as the rest of us if you consider yourself a citizen of this good land. It's just that you're in denial. :p

[Wow]

[quote] What evidence is there that our intelligence services are reliable or can be trusted? Where are the WMD? or maybe it's the intelligence of this administration which is a mess. Disgusting! [/quote]The accusation you make has tons of flaws. Was Bill Clinton wrong when he said Saddam needed to go in 98? Was the U.N. wrong about Saddam all through the 90's? Was England wrong? Were the 5000 people buried alive wrong? You seem to leave out IMPORTANT stuff.

[Franknputer]

Well, if you thought there was nothing worth debating in the first place, then you could not possibly debate "further". However, if that means you won't be baiting people into responding to your hot air, then fine.

[StoneinaPond]

[quote] Was England wrong? [/quote]Absolutely. While it is perhaps a little strong to say outright wrong, senior government officials last weekend openly admitted that they grossly [i]overstated[/i] the situation when it came to Saddam and his so called WMD in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by ChristopherKemp: [b]By the way - Bush WAS in office in 2001. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Yes, he was. And that was probably the single most factor in the timing of the 9/11 attacks. Don't you think that the terrorists would consider who was in office? It doesn't take a fool to realize that the response to a domestic terrorist attack would largely depend on who was in power.

[the stranger]

[quote] it does boil down to how many thousands of people died just for an election. it's funny, i never thought in a million years that i'd come to regret the day we lack someone like a Bill Clinton in office. the irony is, the person who finally makes Bill Clinton look like an honest, sincere, fiscally-conservative spender - is the very stooge that we trashed Clinton over to make look good in the first place. the pathetic part is watching all the people in america who aligned their ego against clinton (or "with" the GOP, as is too often interpretted to be the case) sit around and try to defend the actions of these criminals. after months of treating anyone who disagreed with these people "traitors" - just outright blatantly calling Americans traitors - it is especially pathetic. but one nice thing about american politics. it swings just like the pendulum, and this time, the whole apparatus almost fell over. i think much like the 30 years following vietnam (not comparing the conflict) - the conservative proof is again going to suffer the embarassment of criminal past brought about via ideological zealousness. and when the conservatives laugh at the assertion of criminal - they completely fail to see the difference in a crime that helps an individual, and a crime that affects the lives of millions, billions, or perhaps (to these minds) even more important, the very legitamacy of their own nation. men of destiny scare the shit out of me. because they'll kill anyone to achieve what they believe to be their God-given right. i think clinton is a man of destiny, but one that learned how not to rely on the military/indutrial complex to achieve it - quite a feat for the modern american politician. and i think one that told the world - okay, it's time to change and put down the swords for a bit. and it actually worked incrediblly well. countless terror attempts were at the same time foiled, and perhaps most important of all - it was nearly impossible for someone to stand up and say that the US was an oppresive Empire with fascist tendencies, and a ruling body that would love nothing mroe than to eliminate most of the remaining laws that prevent our Republic from actually being an Empire in law as well as sentiment. to consider how silly this destiny thing is: let's imagine i wake up one day and decide it's my God-given right to make a fortune selling crack to your kids. does that belief that give me the right to force you to tolerate my crack sales? even more ridiculous, when i come barging through your door on the accusation that you have tried to undermine my ability to manufacture and distribute crack - are you going to be very happy when i shoot your mother in the process of liberating you from the evil household that would seek to attack My Interests? i think we witness this dynamic in the neoconservative concept of what exactly the American state is. only instead of crack, we could substitute petroleum. Bush? he always was, and always will be a fool. he's just the Brand Name. he's not even the spokesperson. so impeaching him is like imprisoning Ronald McDonald because McDonald's board decided he should do the next series of ads naked. Dick Cheney on the other hand, is the man with many strings in his hands. you want to talk about impeachment or jail? wolfowitz, rumsfeld, cheney - the guys who've been around since Nixon who have no idea how to manage an economy without selling a lot of "defense" or petroleum equipment - and the same guys who've been tinkering with the whole damned thing. the same guys who tranferred the people in the FBI out of their positions of respoinsibility when they suggested that terrorists were going to hit us hard and soon. the exact same guys (individuals, we're talking about less than 10 people) who met with Saddam Hussein more than anyone in the US government. the same guys who looked the other way when saddam told us he was going to attack kuwait (famously, a client-state of British Petroleum, sine Britain let go of the area as a colony, much like our own Saudi Arabia). but when you listen to the folks who remain firmly in denial with their egos attached to Mr. Bush's success - i think the most compelling thing is how little of any of this history they have any clue about. they seem to think that instead some magic world appeared (usually explained away by blaming clinton somehow, which at this point does not help their logic one bit) - where Evil Doers suddenly freaked out on PCP one day and just decided to start murdering people for the hell of it. no, not for the hell of it, but because they are jealous. in ten years time, i am extremely confident that this viewpoint will be held in as much esteem as that of the john birch society. scared, paranboid little people with chips on their shoulders, and an inflated sense of ego that believes itself more deserving of the world's resources than the natives, who should just eat cake and be happy. thing is, the demos are even more pathetic. clinton was the only form of organization in that entire jumble of fame-seekers and glitterati - the entire DNC leadership has to go before they ever become a viable force in politics again. doesn't mean they won't take office in protest votes against the criminal GOP. criminals or incompetence - it's always the same choice in american politics, you'd think at some point we'd learn. my money is on the incompetence next time - the criminals have been on a luck streak that is due for upset. i think we're already witnessing that upset. all this time people said, "he better not make the same mistake his daddy did", well i think he actually managed to out do his daddy with the exact same thing. but that's not surprising when you remember that the same camp pulling daddy's strings pull junior's too - makes sense it would be more of the same, only a more dangerous, more costly, more glorious failure. at least Bush Snr only lost things America could replenish fairly quickly and with a bit of american elbow grease - lovingly applied throughout the 90s. but the damage done to our reputation, our own national ego, the divisions in our country - a lot of these things are possibly irreplaceable, and we'll be lucky to recover fully from them. i'm glad to see more people speaking out and not being brow beaten by the simplistic, feel-good sloganism of the neocon media machine, i suspect the old tradition of piling on the GOP's extremism is going to return to vogue very soon, if it hasn't already. it's one thing to attack the american people - "the sleeping giant". it's another thing to cheat them. mornin'. well, before 2000, our intelligence services worked reasonably well actually, in that they managed to stop many attacks, and be somewhat conscious of the potential for these things. i have little time for this notion that shaking a bigger stick at your enemy is going to resolve anythingother than making you feel superior at the time for doing so. it just begs for more more conflict. and i think it's pretty clear that in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan that the goal was not liberation, protecting women's rights or a stoking of democracy - but rather to maintain Halliburton's, Bechtel's and Unocal's timelines in Asia. these projects are expensive, you know? and that's the trouble here, no one can believe the US's motives are sound, moral or reasonable. doesn't matter whether they are or not at that point - what's clear is we cannot be believed. that's no way to rule a globe, and why i feel a lot less safe than i did 4 years ago. but then there's the matter of 90% of my friends and family being unemployed - gives you a lot more time to sit around and get knowledgeable about these things, discuss them openly over the net and on the street, and really come to understand how this world got so fucked up, so quickly. but if folks want to keep talking about "National Interests" and "honest" politicians who may sound simple, but who have achieved some kind of moral victory in stupidity - then go ahead, as you would tell me, "our soldiers are fighting abroad for your right to free speech". i may disagree as to why our soldiers are being killed everyday now by a populace getting more and more hostile - but i do agree that the motivations for our soldiers' incredible sacrifice, is to defend the concept of free speech, so while i may find it repulsive (often because it's adopting a position of less free speech), i delight in being in a country where it can be said. what i fear is that the same folks want to change that because they are sick of the "Great Liberal Conspiracy", and will do anything to see it defeated, cutting their arm off to spite their hand. nevermind that is long been known that along with the various lingo of conservatry, the conspiracy is a perfectly legitimate one that the GOP engages in itself everyday. it's called politics. politics is a conspiracy. conspiracy is only a taboo word in american society because it was the term used to define and demonize fringe groups and extremism. but by definition, any group of people who get together and make a plan is a conspiracy. any company. any family. it's when that plan is scary that we need take note. and the scary Liberal conspiracy to educate, communicate and work together is a lot less frightening to me than the GOP conpiracy of Manifest Destiny (oh, and only if you're already part of the crew, or happen to superficially fit a part needed for PR purposes in the coming years). [/quote]Thank you, schmee. These people who "whine" about "liberal whining" say they don't have anything to work with, so I thought I'd repost your wonderful insights.

[Wow]

[quote]quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Was England wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Absolutely. While it is perhaps a little strong to say outright wrong, senior government officials last weekend openly admitted that they grossly overstated the situation when it came to Saddam and his so called WMD in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq [/quote]What senior government officials? Names please. What about the U.N., Bill Clinton , was everybody wrong? :confused:

[Wow]

[quote] it's funny, i never thought in a million years that i'd come to regret the day we lack someone like a Bill Clinton in office. the irony is, the person who finally makes Bill Clinton look like an honest, sincere, fiscally-conservative spender - is the very stooge that we trashed Clinton over to make look good in the first place. [/quote]I will agree on the spending part. The republicans are spending money just as fast as the FAT spending Democrats. Now, If it were not for bill clinton we WOULD NOT BE IN HALF OF THIS FUCKING MESS. So dont make one of the WORST Presidents(clinton) in history out to be something he was not. Clinton cut the budget on: CIA FBI Army SEC Navy IRS Air Force DEA Marines NSA No wonder we were attacked. All in the name of social programs so he could be re-elected. :mad:

[alcohol]

Was Clinton wrong to send a cruise missle to kill Saddam? I thought so. Was his information wrong about WMD? Could be. Did clinton present evidence of WMD to the US that was false? I don't remember him doing that. Is Bush wrong about WMD now? Seems undeniable. Did Bush give false and fabricated evidence to justify our attacking Iraq. Without doubt. Even if Clinton was right or wrong, bringing in Clinton shows that how indefensible Bush is.

[alcohol]

Reagan and Nixon were much worse Presidents than Clinton. The Present Bush is also much worse than Clinton.

[Wow]

[quote] Even if Clinton was right or wrong, bringing in Clinton shows that how indefensible Bush is. [/quote]No it does not, it shows that clinton said the SAME thing that Bush said, saddam needed to go. You cant defend this. So I ask again, Was the U.N. wrong? Was England wrong? Was bill clinton wrong? Was Bush wrong? It seems to me that EVERYBODY was wrong if your theory is right.

[Wow]

[quote] Was his information wrong about WMD? Could be. Did clinton present evidence of WMD to the US that was false? I don't remember him doing that. [/quote]The evidence was from the same C.I.A. , so yes he did. I think you forget stuff for the sake of your argument.

[Zeke Smith.]

Hey, what's the best mic preamp? Oops, sorry, wrong deja vu thread...

[Wow]

No shit. :)