Your points are well taken, but surely you'll admit that the people currently in power in your party do not share your views on the issues you brought up. As unforutnate as it may be the republican ideals you believe in are not the ones being pushed by the ones in control of your party.

The post that I was responding to was one which is throwing its full support behind the current administration - also republicans - and this is an administration that you yourself disagree with.

So no, my comments were not directed at you.


And for what it's worth, your politics are far more palatable to me than those of many others, republican AND democrat.

Um, why are you a Republican? Is it a local thing? I don't get it. #1-3 are directly at odds with the Republican platform, as is the second half of #4, #5 "maybe", #6 check out the downing street memos, #7 Bush flip-flopped on this one - hard, #8 that certainly wasn't the Republican rationalization for war and you know it, #9 "Axis of Evil" is not diplomacy, #10 okaaay true but why would you--you do know as such that you're now paying MORE of the tax burden than before.

I would guess it's for the same reason that I don't protest too much when someone says I'm a democrat - - it's not that I like the democrats or think they're worth a plug nickel, but they're a hell of a lot better than the republicans.

He probably doesn't like half of what the republicans say, especially the current breed of them, but he likes them better than the dems.

Believe it or not in most cases I'm a moderate. I voted for Bush I in '88, liked Buchanan in '96 and would have voted for him. In '00 I voted for Nader and in '04 because of lack of choice I voted for Kerry although I liked Edwards far more.

In '08 I'll probably vote McCain if he runs, if not I'll probably vote for anyone but Hilary in the primary and in the general election see who is running.

My point is I get attacked for being a "know nothing, rhetoric spewing, leftist who should live anywhere but the US" because of some of my beliefs.

Moderate GOP's have a good platform, the Dems have great social plans and solutions and they are not always tax and spend.

We see Bush cut taxes but spend like crazy..... Clinton, like him or not managed to budget and had a surpluss. But yet Dems are considered the bad guys because of their social plans.

In topics like this I just like to show the hypocrisy of those who wanted to fry Clinton but all these Bush scandals are nothing and just say it's just a Dem ploy.

We are too divided in this nation. We don't truly debate issues anymore because everyone is too wrapped up in their partisan viewpoints and the "I'm right, you're wrong so go take a flying $%^&.

Yet, if we truly sat down got rid of the Limbaugh/Moore mentalities and decided to truly try to better the nation I believe we could. The problem is letting the moderates find their voices.

People like you get shoved aside because the radical GOP want everything their way. Same as the Dems., the moderate Dems. get shoved aside and the radicals make it hard for the rest.

The problem is the radicals aren't getting anything done except taking us totally into the shitter, and the people (and it's the very vast majority) in the middle get tired of hearing it so they tune it all out and don't give a damn anymore. Which, if I were a conspiracist (and I am in some ways), I'd say both radical sides would want so they can continue this fight and divisiveness.

And the moderates like me (socially very liberal, fiscally conservative) get attacked and attacked every time I try to debate so eventually it's take a side and fight to be heard or keep putting up with the bullshit.

I'm too passionate and I fight to be heard because I think my points are worth debating. I prefer to be peaceful but eventually when attacked for my beliefs and not faced with true debate, I fight back because the one thing I hate most is having my beliefs attacked without debate or justification.

Anyway, I hope this helps and explains a side to you.

I wish you and more moderates with level heads would come in and debate and start calling bullshit and start standing up and wanting to be heard. It would be refreshing to hear some of your ideas, beliefs and opinions.

There are some very, very good debaters on the other side (DJ, Bear, Stevo and Mojo when they want to be, and so on) I do respect their opinions because they show me and others respect at least a majority of the time and when they call bullshit on me I take it seriously and look at what I have been saying and showing.

So please hang around, more voices like yours may change the shape of this board and that is needed. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Either what I have posted earlier was ignored or forgotten. Did anyone choose to read the factcheck.org article? I posted the link, posted excerpts I thought were central to my arguement - and actually laid out my entire arguement to begin with. Obviously, something is missing.

I have no problem with an investigation. Investigations are great. Its wonderful that we have a country where those in the highest seats in government can be investigated and held accountable if they commited a crime. You can't say the same for every country. I don't fear an investigation and would love to see fitzgerald's case torn apart in a court of law, and the same lines over and over from the left really don't even bother me. So I ignored them for a while. Then I made some quips and laughed a bit. Apparantly that pissed some people off who challenged me to add something useful to the debate. But when I do go out and get some unbiased sources and lay out my arguement for all to see...well look at the responses I get - they are quoted above.

p.s. clinton was IMPEACHED

Stevo,

I understand what you are saying and my intention on this thread was not to get into the Iraq business.

But to show in my opinion another area in which the Bush administration and one of his "friends" ran their office and abused the power.

We have enough of the Iraq debates.

Your first post you showed laughing but didn't address the topic. Granted, this turned into another Iraq post fast and that may have been my fault because I didn't maintain the focus and I did title it wrong, but when I read the original article and saw another Bush crony involved in another scandal it pissed me off.

Why?

Because as I addressed in the 1st and 7th posts, the GOP were so eager to hound and crucify Clinton that they truly didn't give him much of a chance, yet Bush has scandal after scandal come out and the GOP blindly follow, defend and make excuses for him and it sickens me. It shows me a hypocrisy and that party for some comes before the country. To me that is extremely sad and ultimately very scary.

I’m pretty sure politician is a euphemism for hypocrite (on both sides). It is sad that you see both sides condemning the other side for doing the same as themselves.

Not the politicians, the people. Big difference. Politicians publicly almost always have to follow the party line unless they are strong enough at home to not worry about it (like McCain).

No, I'm talking about the people who even today yell about how corrupt Clinton was (even though all they could get him on was lying about an affair) yet ignore the corruption in the Bush WH and act like Bush is still a great president, who can do no wrong.

They defend every scandal with the same mantra and laugh it off. Yet the evidence such as for this thread's scandal has proof, has GOP senators asking WTF is going on, and yet as with almost every other Bush scandal this will be swept away and forgotten.

There was a sacrificial lamb, a resignation and the administration denying it had anything to do with it.

I just believe if you are going to set a standard for one, you have to follow that standard for all. Which we don't get, we get instead..... "the Dems. are just attacking and there's nothing there." But how many scandals have to come out before one of these GOP posters say, "maybe there is something there, maybe we do need to clean house."

If you keep blindly following along party lines and dismiss scandals then these politicians know they can get away with anything.

And if you are going to try to clean one side up, you best be willing and wanting to clean your side up and hold them to the same standards. Yet, neither party does and it is sad.

I'm all for a full investigation into EVERY member of congress and getting them to start setting true ethics rules and regs that they have to follow strictly and a bipartisan comission to be a watchdog over them and the President to make sure the people are protected.

Perhaps, by doing that there maybe better leadership in both parties and things may actually truly change in Wash.

Good suggestion, except that there would have to be a law passed to do this, and who would vote for it? The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

maybe some judicial activists can reinterpret the constitution to add this oversight ;) Did the supreme court do that once before?

They have the ethics laws there now, but the party in charge is also in charge of the oversight committees.

Like you say the inmates are in charge and perhaps the people should start getting more vocal about wanting a change in how Congress and the President look at their ethics and how much lobbyists influence there is and so on.

When enough voices speak out Congress does listen, even if it is only for their own self preservation.

Plus there's the election finance reform issue, another good cause that is stonewalled because nobody wants to vote down their own funding.

I dunno how likely any public outcry is going to be. People seem to have become numb in the last 5 years, just too much $hit to react to and process anymore. Like living in a sawmill town, eventually you just don't smell it anymore.

Wow. I'll give this to you. You're very good. You almost had everyone fooled into thinking that was the point I addressed in my post to you. Unfortunately, this is what I was replying to, NOT whether or not Bush lied:


You have no evidence that this is baseless, you have no evidence (hint: Rush Limbaugh does not count as evidence) that it's just petty bullshit from the left, yet you claim it to be.


Because your unbiased source said nothing whatsoever about what you were talking about in the statement that I replied to.



Yes, which means he was put on trial, and then his case was "torn apart" when it came before congress. He was impeached, but was not convicted. Did you have a point with that? Or are you trying to say that anything Bush does, no matter how smarmy, is OK because a democrat back in history got impeached? Are you planning on using Clinton's impeachment as the excuse for any wrongdoing committed by your party for the rest of your life? I frankly hope not - that would be pretty pathetic.

sour grapes.

Actually...he has a point. I have seen the "Clinton Manifesto" used so many times I cannot count them. (yes I just made that up). It is a common escape for supporters of Mr. Bush to use Slick Willy as a means to avoid actually addressing the deficiencies layed out concerning Bush. Dont get me wrong....Clinton was guilty as sin, and got off on a technicality, as he did lie in court, but that should have no bearing on the Guy that is running the counrty...Now.

tec, shakran brought clinton into this thread, not me. So what point does he have?

Actually Stevo, I brought Clinton into it in my first post by saying I really find it hypocritical that the people so willing to fry Clinton are turning blind eyes and defending Bush. And it is very true.

This wasn't a thread to compare the 2 either, it was to point out another Bush scandal and see what defense there was from the Bush followers here and why after scandal upon scandal this behavior is ok from the president, all of a sudden. And so far there hasn't been any defense but to turn and attack.

To me no defense means it's blind following and a blank check because these people truly do not care about what is right or wrong just who has the power.

This wasn't to be a thread to compare the 2 though, it was to ask why were these people so willing to destroy the presidency, spend billions upon billions to investigate everything he did, and pretty much bring the country to a standstill while they prosecuted him, while these same people do nothing about Bush.

And any Dem who points anything out gets attacked for "sour grapes" or "this won't go away will it nothing there..." or etc.

Yet it is scandal after scandal after scandal in this administration, with proof of wrongdoing, questionable ethics and lieing to the people and congress.

So when I start to post why I laugh at the left for this attempt at plamegate, and show how it is all bogus, with documented sources even, for some reason it is ignored almost whole-heartedly by the left on this board. Clinton is brought into it, a sentance here or there that isn't central to my main point is attacked. Now we see who is really dancing around the issue. Maybe the reason the same people who investigated clinton aren't doing it here isn't because bush has some free-pass, but because they've looked at the evidence and decided it wasn't worth their time.

If you were to read the entire factcheck.org article, the link which is posted by me earlier in this thread, then you would see that it shows the statement I made is true. This is all bogus.

Supporting a president is one thing, but delusionally insisting that a president can do no wrong, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, indicates that you're either not paying attention to the facts or that you're determined to support this guy no matter what, even if it makes you look foolish.

I'm just curious if there's anything that could possibly happen that would deflate even a little bit Bush's status in your eyes. 65% of the country already sees this administration for what it is. Why are you so in the minority.

If you were to read the entire factcheck.org article, the link which is posted by me earlier in this thread, then you would see that it shows the statement I made is true. This is all bogus. It isn't spelled out for you, like a second grade book, but you have to read the article and think critically about it for a moment. Weigh the facts in the case, not just your own wishful thinking, and then you'll be able to see that there is nothing to this. But you're right, it doesn't just come out and say, in the first paragraph: The plame-leak is a bogus attempt by the left to take down the bush administration, here is why (1), (2), (3). and then go on in subsequent paragraphs to explain. sorry, I'll do better next time.

Mountains of evidence does not equal nyt and wash post articles. If there was mountains of evidence there would be a whole lot more than one indictment on scooter libby for lying to investigators about conversations he had with reporters.

It won't take mountains of evidence for me, just some evidence.

Excellent! Sarcasm and insults! Rule of thumb for debate - when you're cornered and you know you're defending a heaping pile of bullshit, turn the tables and attack the intelligence of the one you're debating with. Masterful touch, even if it is technically against the forum rules. But then as long as we're staunchly defending a man who doesn't give a crap about rules, why should we bother to follow them ourselves?

I think you missed something in my 65% comment. That means only 35% of the american public supports the president. This is quite significant when you consider the old rule of thumb: 40% of the people will support democrats no matter what. 40% will support republicans no matter what. The remaining 20% is who you fight over in elections.

But with only 35% of the people supporting Bush, that means he's even managed to piss off 5% (give or take a few %) of the people that usually support republicans regardless of the evidence.

At any rate, if you can't see that Bush has royally screwed this country, perhaps this excellent quote from Fark will help:



This guy is one of the worst presidents we have ever had. His numbers reflect that. The american people are finally, slowly, waking up to this fact. It's pretty bad when you have approval ratings that are the lowest since Nixon.



I'll give you this much. The guy in office might not be a crook and a liar. But he's stupid enough to surround themselves with them and then believe everything they tell him. Either he's behind it, or he's too stupid to see that it's happening. Either way, that's an indication of someone who should NOT be president.

The factcheck article is completely inconclusive, and says so itself in the last paragraph:

With selective quoting, you can use the article to argue any side you want to. Here are some examples:

So it appears the authors of the factcheck article didn't have, in hand, all the classified information pertinent to the question, and other information existed at the time that that should have been used as a reason for excising those 16 words, but for some reason was not, according to Tenet.

The take home message that I see from that article is that the CIA was being pressured in a particular direction, which was not the direction towards the truth. I think it would be naive to think that this was not intentional.

But of course anything involving the CIA is shrouded in secrecy so we probably will never know the details. Hence the factcheck article's conclusion, again:

That's a pretty weak defense of Bush, IMHO.

I'll wait for the indictments, thank you very much, if they ever come.

I might have had a different view of bush if it wasn't for the extreme hatred portrayed by the left in this country and across the world. That just makes me want to support him more. Its kind of like giving a big middle finger to everyone else. so I say - go bush! do whatever the hell you want! go bush! blood for oil! go bush! cut taxes! spend more! drive the economy into the pisser! kill us all!

get it?

Sure, you're saying here clearly that your support for bush is just perverse taunting and nothing more.

I do that a lot too, but it's usually in sports bars, not usually in political debates. In the latter it ultimately trivializes death and suffering.

There was a police cavalcade escorting two black SUV's into the federal courthouse today. This has become a pretty comon sight here since Bush was re-elected. Honestly, I don't think Bush is criminal. He has a dastardly problem of rewarding two things, 1. friends 2. incompetence.

BTW, "Brownie" put his town house up for sale this weekend. $890k gets it. It's out of the flood plain.

This thread ceased to be a political debate a long time ago.

Like you said. the article says:

thats not evidence. yet all that is heard is how much of a criminal bush and his administration is. Now shakran says I should stop supporting bush because he has low approval ratings. And you still see this as a political debate. Pah-lease. This thread is a joke.

And nobody was using that particular article and its individual opinion as evidence against bush. It was originally brought up as evidence in support of bush.

. . . and the evidence against bush starts with Tenet's own statements on the record, on this subject.

And like I have already stated: If there was evidence we would have more than speculation and accusations. If all this evidence is so obvious and apparent why aren't rove, cheney, and bush indicted yet?

Uh, well, let's see,

Man in charge #1 - Bush
Man in charge #2 - Cheney
Man in charge #1's brain - Rove

I think that clears it up.

And we do have more than speculation and accusations, we have several indictments of bush cronies, as several posts in this thread have pointed out.

I must have missed them. could you point me to the several of them?

Well let's see, within the administration we have Safavian and Libby. Then outside we have Delay, but the allegations against him are probably connected to the White House through Safavian. Have I missed anybody?

So yes, we do have more than "speculations", we do have indictments.

Thats the first time savavian has been mentioned in this post. What was he indicted for? I still fail to see any connection to bush lying about the iraq war. sepeculation.

how about the fact that every justification he gave for the war has been shot down and it has been shown that he knew much of the intel was bad when he presented it.

That is speculation and assumptions, and indictments don't mean anything without convictions.

not facts. speculation. there will be no debate if actual facts are presented. facts would be indiputable. If those were facts, he would be on trial. But they are not facts. just speculation.

Who's going to? The GOP are in power of both Houses and while as in the start of this thread a senotor or rep may go after someone from the WH, the investigation never gets past committee and even fewer stay in the press very long. Look how long this one did.

The polls keep going down on a president that right after 9/11 could have had blind support for whatever he did....... oh wait he did have an unsigned check and he took advantage of it. The problem is the party and protecting mean more to the Senators and the Reps. than doing their jobs and truly investigating any scandal. (This is why we truly need a Bipartisan watchdog group that has no interest in who is in office.... oooo wait we did the press.... but they were consistently attacked by Bush followers as being too biased...... oooo wait we did the voters but they were too turned off by election scandals and believed their voices just didn't matter anymore......)

He could have worked and brought the country together with solid leadership (he didn't even have to be great), instead he used what the American people gave him and the power to drive a partisan wedge deeper between us and worked to destroy everything this country stood for.

The polls show it as people are waking up, there has finally come to be too much evidence, too many scandals, too much arrogance, too much partisanship, too much hatred for those who question him for the majority of people to take.

I just think the Bush supporters are selling out their beliefs, their morals and their country for hatred of the Dems and not love for Bush. (Which is fucking sad.)

I think the Bush supporters turn blind eyes and would rather see Rome burn and Nero fiddle than to admit something seriously wrong is going on and it not only affects the present but truly fucks in for the future.

Do I want Bush impeached? No, that would just put Cheney in charge.

I truly believe when all is said and done history will point to this as one of the worst presidencies and one that not only tore and divided the nation but bankrupted it for his own gains.

I truly hope for my children and grandchildren I am wrong, but I don't think so and I think the negative retributions and effects of this presidency will felt for a very, very long time.

Finally, I guarantee you this, if by next May Bush's numbers are still in the shitter and the scandals are still coming out, those GOP Reps, and Senators seeking reelection will be pulling away from him and will be admitting problems and deeply investigating Bush. Because self preservation in the end is what politics is about and it may be the only thing that truly can save this country.

Fiddle Nero Bush fiddle and laugh while Rome burns, for you had what it took to stop it and instead you added the fuel to make it burn even faster and hotter.