U.S. News: The Secrets of the Bush Administration

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: alchemize

NO the issue about Clinton never was the cigar... If he had just toed the line and said "no comment", or "none of your bidness", it would have been slightly scandalous, but no more than any other carousing politician. It was the brazen public lying about it, even under oath, that followed. So it wasn't simply "that sexual relation only hurt 2 people" or a BJ or whatever all the Clinton Apologists (ooh see how creative I am in making that one up?) like to tag it as. It was the attempted and failed cover up.
Good point and nice usage of "Clinton Apologists." The ol' "we like him, so we don't care if he lied under oath, since only 2 people were hurt" is the major plank in the CA's platform.
I definitely agree - the cover up was worse than the crime. As it often is. I think most liberals around here can admit that Clinton certainly had his share of problems. At least I can. What's indeed rarer is for some of the conservative types to ever admit Bush can do wrong too. No man is perfect. Frankly, I have a big problem with government secrecy - it's certainly something worth looking at. The lack of transparancy with this administration is well-established and it seems like every accusation, even the ones with some substance, is dismissed out of hand as "liberal paranoia."
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: outriding


If we can get Clinton on trial for what he does in his spare time, I say we get bush on trial and ask him what evidence he had that saddam had wmd ? the white house, bush included said many times SH has wmd.

where is the outrage there ? People have died and billions have been spent.
Why not just ask the (D) Senators who voted for the war for the evidence? Clearly the President has more important things to tend to than your typical fishing expedition...read the 1991 reports and that, in and of itself, should provide you with enough evidence...

 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize


where is the outrage there ? "Illegally performing a war" as everyone likes to call that? "

I sure do miss the "no war for oil" and "illegal war" protests that were so effective. D.C. has never been the same since:) I am glad, though, that young kids have an issue they can finally identify with.


 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,410
4,790
126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: outriding


If we can get Clinton on trial for what he does in his spare time, I say we get bush on trial and ask him what evidence he had that saddam had wmd ? the white house, bush included said many times SH has wmd.

where is the outrage there ? People have died and billions have been spent.
Why not just ask the (D) Senators who voted for the war for the evidence? Clearly the President has more important things to tend to than your typical fishing expedition...read the 1991 reports and that, in and of itself, should provide you with enough evidence...
Ahahaha WTF? You switch to defending Clinton now
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
That has to be one of the most irresponsible pieces of journalism I've (n)ever read. (BAA) A "Policy of Secrecy" based on supposition and anecdotal evidence? (BAA) Who authorized that thing? Has any President laid out the entirety of the government like a book for public viewing?(BAA) The fact that these writers (BAA) chose this President (BAA) to make an example of is journalism gone wrong.(BAA) (BAA) (BAA)

I'm surprised they didn't mention how nefarious Bush was by being "secretive" about his trip to Iraq on Thanksgiving. (BAA) Quite obviously he should have announced it because that's what any good President would do.
BAA BAA BAA. Zero wins the prize for stupid partisan drivel. Do you ever read anything not approved by the neo-cons? Dubya is constantly criticized by the left and the right for his obsessive secrecy. Cheney energy committee. Former public records. Reagan's documents. 9-11 commission. I saw a story last night where the Bethesda Medical Center for the first time ever is denied access to information about soldiers wounded in Iraq. What is Dubya hiding?


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 2000.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Let's see, an article based on facts discussing the shortcoming of Bush Admin, and the answer from Bush apologist?

apologist 1: Clinton did this and taht
apologist 2: Dean said this and that
apologist 3: Bush is not responsible since he himself didn't do it

Gee, why am I not surprsied
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY