Is it all going to come tumbling down? (Political)

[Laugh O. Grams]

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." — George W. Bush - Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —George W. Bush - Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

Wow...and somehow, they painted John Kerry as a flip flopper!!!

 

[Planogirl]

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." — George W. Bush Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003


Guess we went to war because Saddam is terrorizing himself. Or at least that is what our fine president is telling us

Sounds painful.

WHAT does Saddam actually have to do with 9-11? I keep asking that and keep waiting for a logical answer.

Oh by the way, I love everyone here! There, did that help with the war against terror?

 

[scubamouse]

what part of that is fiction? I'll field this one.

there are no WMD Yes there are.
the evidence was exaggerated at best and a flat out lie at the worst Nu-uh.
Iraq was planned before 9/11 No way
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 Yes they did
People in the WH told reporters who Joe Wilson's wife was big deal
over half of congress isn't holding the admin accountable - do they believe it matters? Wait a minute...I need to reinflate my George Bush blow up doll and I'll get back to you on that one.

and sadly 2000 soliders have died in Iraq. I'm just glad my army BIL isn't there. Not important....you know what is though? Hillary Clinton letting the White House travel office go and Bill's sexual escapades with interns....that's what's really important!!! Get on board!!!

wow - can you provide some links for all those 'facts' maybe from someplace other than the RNC talking points.

oh and why isn't it important that 2000 soliders have died?

 

[Independent]

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war." —George W. Bush, on the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

And here is a very recent quote from the Pres that actually acknowledges that we were at war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11

Shhh - don't tell him that he just let the cat out of the bag that the administration was actually planning the war long before 9/11. 9/11 was just the excuse they needed to put their plans into action.

 

[Independent]

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Wow, and here he admits that everything his administration is foisting on the American public is nothing but propaganda. Guess that would include the WMD, the reasons for invading Iraq, etc.

 

[Holly]

wow - can you provide some links for all those 'facts' maybe from someplace other than the RNC talking points.

oh and why isn't it important that 2000 soliders have died?

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I think LOG was being sarcastic.


Dawn- You are my political opposite and we will never agree, but sometimes you are pretty darn funny. Warthogs?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

wow - can you provide some links for all those 'facts' maybe from someplace other than the RNC talking points.

oh and why isn't it important that 2000 soliders have died?

Jokes, baby, jokes...I kid because I love. I'm on your side, if the George Bush blow up doll comment didn't make it glaringly apparent. I must be losing my touch?!?!

 

[Laura]

Wow...and somehow, they painted John Kerry as a flip flopper!!!

No kidding! Waffles, anyone?

 

[wvrevy]

You guys should know better than this. Republicans don't "flip flop"...they have divinely inspired changes of heart.



The right painted Kerry as a "flip-flopper" (really high minded rhetoric there, eh ?) by touting his stupid line of "I voted for it before I voted against it". Never mind that it is easily explained by the fact that Kerry voted for one bill, which failed, and then voted against a Republican bill that also contained the money for the troops, along with clauses that Kerry could not, in good conscience, vote for. See...nuance just confuses them.

The fact is, they simply have a much better spin machine than the left. It's sad, but apparently, there is a large portion of the voting public incapable of understanding anything deeper than a 15 second sound byte. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this portion also leans heavily to the right.

 

[scubamouse]

Jokes, baby, jokes...I kid because I love. I'm on your side, if the George Bush blow up doll comment didn't make it glaringly apparent. I must be losing my touch?!?!

i'm a newbie - still trying to pick up nuance - don't hold it against me ok?

 

[Independent]

"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." —George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

And here our Pres actually admits that the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power. So talk about a flip-flop. One minute he is saying how Saddam is the root of all terrorism, the next he is saying the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power.

I take my waffles with a bit of butter and maple syrup please. And I will bring the Mimosas

 

[Holly]

You guys should know better than this. Republicans don't "flip flop"...they have divinely inspired changes of heart.



The right painted Kerry as a "flip-flopper" (really high minded rhetoric there, eh ?) by touting his stupid line of "I voted for it before I voted against it". Never mind that it is easily explained by the fact that Kerry voted for one bill, which failed, and then voted against a Republican bill that also contained the money for the troops, along with clauses that Kerry could not, in good conscience, vote for. See...nuance just confuses them.

The fact is, they simply have a much better spin machine than the left. It's sad, but apparently, there is a large portion of the voting public incapable of understanding anything deeper than a 15 second sound byte. It shouldn't come as a surprise that this portion also leans heavily to the right.

Over 90% of college professors are liberal. That says something.

 

[Independent]

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

Ok, now I get it

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

Ok, now I get it

I love it!!! What a clown!

 

[yeartolate]

You can say that again! The next thing you know, they will be nominating Saddam for the Nobel Peace Prize.

While you are talking about supporting our enemies, who supported Bin Laden and Saddam in the early eighties....... (can you answer that without a "but Clinton?")

 

[mickeyfan2]

Over 90% of college professors are liberal. That says something.

Yes, those who can't do teach.

 

[yeartolate]

If there is so much objection to the professors being liberal, why don't a fe conservatives make some career changes? It sounds like a constructive way to afffect change. (if you accept the premise that the liberal educators are there to indoctrinate the impressionable young minds into a specific ideology)

 

[FergieTCat]

It must have been easier for people to rewrite history in the days before the internet. A little research shows that the first strike against Iraq was dated before September, 2001 ... about 7 months before.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/16/iraq.airstrike.03/

Sounds to be like Dubya was enforcing an agenda thought out 10 years before by his Dad (who I never liked either, but seems more and more like a prince everyday.) (vomiting on a prime minister from another country notwithstanding).

 

[crcormier]

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks of the whole Plame affair, and whether or not those involved should still be indicted if they perjured themselves or obstructed justice during the investigation, even if they aren't found guilty of revealing a covert operative as the original investigation was out to prove.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I'm curious to know what everyone thinks of the whole Plame affair, and whether or not those involved should still be indicted if they perjured themselves or obstructed justice during the investigation, even if they aren't found guilty of revealing a covert operative as the original investigation was out to prove.

I think that's a fair question. I believe that you'll find most people who politically lean right felt that Clinton's impeachment was fair and just, and he was found guilty of lying under oath in order to obstruct a pending lawsuit. I see no reason why the same set of criteria shouldn't apply for everyone caught up in this. After all, Clinton was involved in the "high crime" of an extramarital affair with a consenting adult, and most people on the right felt that was a serious enough charge to pursue legal action against him. I would think that lying about going to war and having 2,000 American troops killed as a result would at the very least merit the same gravitas.

By the way, as the indictments get handed down this week, remember what President Bush said when the scandal first hit the light of day;

"If there is a leak out of my administration I want to know who it is,
and if that person has violated law, that person will be taken care
of. " --- George W. Bush, Chicago, Illinois, September 30, 2003