Why do people bring up Clinton in response to criticism of Bush?

[sMiLeYz]

This isn't a game here, people are honestly fustrated with the administration, it's moderates, liberals, libertarians... anyone with half a brain would realize America is not going the right direction while being lead by Bush Jr.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

You mean like how Reagan wasn't President during Clinton's terms in office but that didn't stop the Democrats from dragging his name through the mud every 3.2 seconds? Once again the Democrats prove that they don't like Republicans to play by the same rules they do. Oh it's fine for a Democrat to attack a Republican ex President but God forbid a Republican attack and ex Democrat President.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Bush apologists keep attacking Clinton because it's the only thing they can do. The more you bash Clinton, the more it proves Bush is indefensible. Either defend Bush on his own merits or concede that he's a failure.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Sleestak

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

You mean like how Reagan wasn't President during Clinton's terms in office but that didn't stop the Democrats from dragging his name through the mud every 3.2 seconds? Once again the Democrats prove that they don't like Republicans to play by the same rules they do. Oh it's fine for a Democrat to attack a Republican ex President but God forbid a Republican attack and ex Democrat President.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Bush apologists keep attacking Clinton because it's the only thing they can do. The more you bash Clinton, the more it proves Bush is indefensible. Either defend Bush on his own merits or concede that he's a failure.

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

Step up and accept your reward from the DNC proudly Bowfinger, you are earning it.


edit/ took out an errant "not" that crept in while typing.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: etech
Why do people say they will vote for any democratic presidential nominee in the next election no matter who they are or what their policies may be?

It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is.

That was the response I expected, it's also wrong and stupid but thanks for playing.

Why, because you said so? If I say you're wrong and stupid, does that make it the truth?

In my opinion, it's the same old same old. You Bushies rely almost 100% on shouting down your opposition. You call names, you slur character, you change the subject, you wave the flag and chant your support of Bush-lite, but you don't offer substance to support your positions and you almost never respond to specific positions and questions raised. You call us sheep, yet you're the ones who mindlessly bleat on and on about how stupid and partisan we are without ever offering anything yourselves.

If Bush is as wonderful as you claim, you should have no problem supporting him and defending his actions with positive, factual information. Every time you resort to personal attacks and refuse to respond to specific claims, you reinforce the view that he is indefensible.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: etech
Why do people say they will vote for any democratic presidential nominee in the next election no matter who they are or what their policies may be?

It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is.

That was the response I expected, it's also wrong and stupid but thanks for playing.

Why, because you said so? If I say you're wrong and stupid, does that make it the truth?

In my opinion, it's the same old same old. You Bushies rely almost 100% on shouting down your opposition. You call names, you slur character, you change the subject, you wave the flag and chant your support of Bush-lite, but you don't offer substance to support your positions and you almost never respond to specific positions and questions raised. You call us sheep, yet you're the ones who mindlessly bleat on and on about how stupid and partisan we are without ever offering anything yourselves.

If Bush is as wonderful as you claim, you should have no problem supporting him and defending his actions with positive, factual information. Every time you resort to personal attacks and refuse to respond to specific claims, you reinforce the view that he is indefensible.

Bingo.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Bush apologists keep attacking Clinton because it's the only thing they can do. The more you bash Clinton, the more it proves Bush is indefensible. Either defend Bush on his own merits or concede that he's a failure.

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are not devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

Step up and accept your reward from the DNC proudly Bowfinger, you are earning it.

Yes, dear, whatever you say.

Thanks for helping to prove my point. You are unable to defend Bush so you attack me.

I've stated many times that Clinton lied. Do you have the integrity to make the same concession re. Bush? Didn't think so.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: etech
Why do people say they will vote for any democratic presidential nominee in the next election no matter who they are or what their policies may be?

It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is.

That was the response I expected, it's also wrong and stupid but thanks for playing.

Why, because you said so? If I say you're wrong and stupid, does that make it the truth?

In my opinion, it's the same old same old. You Bushies rely almost 100% on shouting down your opposition. You call names, you slur character, you change the subject, you wave the flag and chant your support of Bush-lite, but you don't offer substance to support your positions and you almost never respond to specific positions and questions raised. You call us sheep, yet you're the ones who mindlessly bleat on and on about how stupid and partisan we are without ever offering anything yourselves.

If Bush is as wonderful as you claim, you should have no problem supporting him and defending his actions with positive, factual information. Every time you resort to personal attacks and refuse to respond to specific claims, you reinforce the view that he is indefensible.

Where are your specific claims and the documentation to back them up.

As for the rest of your little diatribe, clever, pot kettle black sums it up completely.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Bush apologists keep attacking Clinton because it's the only thing they can do. The more you bash Clinton, the more it proves Bush is indefensible. Either defend Bush on his own merits or concede that he's a failure.

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are not devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

Step up and accept your reward from the DNC proudly Bowfinger, you are earning it.

Yes, dear, whatever you say.

Thanks for helping to prove my point. You are unable to defend Bush so you attack me.

I've stated many times that Clinton lied. Do you have the integrity to make the same concession re. Bush? Didn't think so.

You have not proved that Pres. Bush lied.

Clintons lies are a matter of public record and have been proven.

Do you not have the sense to see the difference?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: etech
Why do people say they will vote for any democratic presidential nominee in the next election no matter who they are or what their policies may be?

It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is.

That was the response I expected, it's also wrong and stupid but thanks for playing.

Why, because you said so? If I say you're wrong and stupid, does that make it the truth?

In my opinion, it's the same old same old. You Bushies rely almost 100% on shouting down your opposition. You call names, you slur character, you change the subject, you wave the flag and chant your support of Bush-lite, but you don't offer substance to support your positions and you almost never respond to specific positions and questions raised. You call us sheep, yet you're the ones who mindlessly bleat on and on about how stupid and partisan we are without ever offering anything yourselves.

If Bush is as wonderful as you claim, you should have no problem supporting him and defending his actions with positive, factual information. Every time you resort to personal attacks and refuse to respond to specific claims, you reinforce the view that he is indefensible.

Where are your specific claims and the documentation to back them up.

Pick a thread, any thread.

But how about we start here, in this message? You claim that it is "wrong and stupid" for people to feel the situation with the Bush administration is so bad. Why? What makes it "wrong and stupid"? How is this administration NOT so bad that it makes them "wrong and stupid"? Defend it. Stop attacking the people who disagree with you and support this administration -- if you can.

In short, you dodged my question before. Now answer it: "Why, because you said so?"

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: etech
Why do people say they will vote for any democratic presidential nominee in the next election no matter who they are or what their policies may be?

It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is.

That was the response I expected, it's also wrong and stupid but thanks for playing.

Why, because you said so? If I say you're wrong and stupid, does that make it the truth?

In my opinion, it's the same old same old. You Bushies rely almost 100% on shouting down your opposition. You call names, you slur character, you change the subject, you wave the flag and chant your support of Bush-lite, but you don't offer substance to support your positions and you almost never respond to specific positions and questions raised. You call us sheep, yet you're the ones who mindlessly bleat on and on about how stupid and partisan we are without ever offering anything yourselves.

If Bush is as wonderful as you claim, you should have no problem supporting him and defending his actions with positive, factual information. Every time you resort to personal attacks and refuse to respond to specific claims, you reinforce the view that he is indefensible.

Where are your specific claims and the documentation to back them up.

Pick a thread, any thread.

But how about we start here, in this message? You claim that it is "wrong and stupid" for people to feel the situation with the Bush administration is so bad. Why? What makes it "wrong and stupid"? How is this administration NOT so bad that it makes them "wrong and stupid"? Defend it. Stop attacking the people who disagree with you and support this administration -- if you can.

In short, you dodged my question before. Now answer it: "Why, because you said so?"

The question was why people would vote for any person no matter who they are or what their policies were in the next election. Your reply was that "It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is."

So they state they would elect anyone, no matter what their qualifications, stated goals or whatever just to get rid of Pres. Bush. That is the type of blind partinship that I feel is dangerous and you seem to be a prime example.

Have a nice day dear.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I've stated many times that Clinton lied. Do you have the integrity to make the same concession re. Bush? Didn't think so.

You have not proved that Pres. Bush lied.

Clintons lies are a matter of public record and have been proven.

Do you not have the sense to see the difference?

Bush-lite's lies are also a matter of public record, and have become extremely well-documented over the last few weeks. The only difference is that Bush hasn't been taken to court . . . yet. Do you not have the integrity to see there is no moral difference?

A lie is a lie is a lie, whether it has been "proven" in court or not. You would show more integrity if you conceded Bush lied, but claimed it was justified to serve the greater good, rather than continuing to pretend he was honest.

(By the way, Clinton's lie didn't kill thousands of people and turn this country into an international pariah. Do you not have the sense to see the difference?)

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I've stated many times that Clinton lied. Do you have the integrity to make the same concession re. Bush? Didn't think so.

You have not proved that Pres. Bush lied.

Clintons lies are a matter of public record and have been proven.

Do you not have the sense to see the difference?

Bush-lite's lies are also a matter of public record, and have become extremely well-documented over the last few weeks. The only difference is that Bush hasn't been taken to court . . . yet. Do you not have the integrity to see there is no moral difference?

A lie is a lie is a lie, whether it has been "proven" in court or not. You would show more integrity if you conceded Bush lied, but claimed it was justified to serve the greater good, rather than continuing to pretend he was honest.

(By the way, Clinton's lie didn't kill thousands of people and turn this country into an international pariah. Do you not have the sense to see the difference?)

Really, document each of his lies and prove it as a matter of public record that it was a lie and that he knew it was a lie. You can say say say it was a lie lie lie but then I expect no more from you. Prove it or it is just your opinion. I see no reason to hold your opinion in any esteem.

When you can do that, get back to me. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech
The question was why people would vote for any person no matter who they are or what their policies were in the next election. Your reply was that "It shows how bad people feel the situation with this administration is."

So they state they would elect anyone, no matter what their qualifications, stated goals or whatever just to get rid of Pres. Bush. That is the type of blind partinship that I feel is dangerous and you seem to be a prime example.

See, that wasn't so hard. And I actually agree with you. If people vote for NOT-Bush, no matter how noxious NOT-Bush might be, that would be wrong and stupid in my opinion.

A more accurate position would be that people feel this administration is so bad that they can't imagine the Democrats fielding someone who is even worse than Bush-lite. That's a bit cumbersome, however, so it's common to abbreviate it as sMiLeYz did in his remark. (And for the record, it wasn't my reply, it was his.)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bush-lite's lies are also a matter of public record, and have become extremely well-documented over the last few weeks. The only difference is that Bush hasn't been taken to court . . . yet. Do you not have the integrity to see there is no moral difference?

A lie is a lie is a lie, whether it has been "proven" in court or not. You would show more integrity if you conceded Bush lied, but claimed it was justified to serve the greater good, rather than continuing to pretend he was honest.

(By the way, Clinton's lie didn't kill thousands of people and turn this country into an international pariah. Do you not have the sense to see the difference?)

Really, document each of his lies and prove it as a matter of public record that it was a lie and that he knew it was a lie. You can say say say it was a lie lie lie but then I expect no more from you. Prove it or it is just your opinion. I see no reason to hold your opinion in any esteem.

When you can do that, get back to me. I won't be holding my breath.

Your prerogative, of course. It's a free country.

Nonetheless, the evidence is abundant, and it's growing by the day. Some people are slower than others, but the American public is gradually awakening to what the rest of the world knew from the beginning: Iraq did NOT have nukes, Iraq had no connection to 9/11, Iraq had little if any remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and Iraq was no threat to world security. Bush and his minions repeatedly claimed otherwise. They were lying.

 

[tcsenter]

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Bush-lite's lies are also a matter of public record, and have become extremely well-documented over the last few weeks. The only difference is that Bush hasn't been taken to court . . . yet. Do you not have the integrity to see there is no moral difference?

A lie is a lie is a lie, whether it has been "proven" in court or not. You would show more integrity if you conceded Bush lied, but claimed it was justified to serve the greater good, rather than continuing to pretend he was honest.

(By the way, Clinton's lie didn't kill thousands of people and turn this country into an international pariah. Do you not have the sense to see the difference?)

Really, document each of his lies and prove it as a matter of public record that it was a lie and that he knew it was a lie. You can say say say it was a lie lie lie but then I expect no more from you. Prove it or it is just your opinion. I see no reason to hold your opinion in any esteem.

When you can do that, get back to me. I won't be holding my breath.

Your prerogative, of course. It's a free country.

Nonetheless, the evidence is abundant, and it's growing by the day. Some people are slower than others, but the American public is gradually awakening to what the rest of the world knew from the beginning: Iraq did NOT have nukes, Iraq had no conncetion to 9/11, Iraq had little if any remaining chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and Iraq was no threat to world security. Bush and his minions repeatedly claimed otherwise. They were lying.

So you say you have evidence but you have no facts and only innuendo. You are ready to call the Pres. a liar based on that. What you posted is not proof that he lied. If the intelligence all pointed to Iraq having those weapons and programs which they had in the past than they were not lies. That should be simple enough for you to figure out.

If you believe that Iraq's threat was only from WMD than you need to study the Middle East and the political and ecomic situation over there a lot more. You are missing the big picture completely.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

If it is true that Bush purposely lied to the Nation and the world about Iraq I'd say his lies were on a magnitude 100 times worse than Clintons and much more damaging to the US and the world. Of course these lies are so far just alleged. But if proven true then Bush should and would go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

If it is true that Bush purposely lied to the Nation and the world about Iraq I'd say his lies were on a magnitude 100 times worse than Clintons and much more damaging to the US and the world. Of course these lies are so far just alleged. But if proven true then Bush should and would go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever.

Red, the point is of course, that they are still alleged yet some on this board are stating as fact that Pres. Bush lied.

Who is the known liar in those two groups?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

If it is true that Bush purposely lied to the Nation and the world about Iraq I'd say his lies were on a magnitude 100 times worse than Clintons and much more damaging to the US and the world. Of course these lies are so far just alleged. But if proven true then Bush should and would go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever.

Red, the point is of course, that they are still alleged yet some on this board are stating as fact that Pres. Bush lied.

Who is the known liar in those two groups?

Clinton but it's assumed by the vast majority that all politicians are liars and Clinton's lies about his sexual escapades weren't surprising. Now if Bush or his Associates are proven to have blatantly lied those lies would make Clinton's seem as trivial as they actually were.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

If it is true that Bush purposely lied to the Nation and the world about Iraq I'd say his lies were on a magnitude 100 times worse than Clintons and much more damaging to the US and the world. Of course these lies are so far just alleged. But if proven true then Bush should and would go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever.

I would have to agree, but as long as the reconstruction of Iraq is successull, history will be very forgiving. That being said, democrats had better starting putting a iraq reconstruction plan together just in case they win 04.

 

[Ferocious]

Very interesting though that Republicans have blocked every potential investigation committe in Congress from forming.

Very interesting....but quite expected.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

If it is true that Bush purposely lied to the Nation and the world about Iraq I'd say his lies were on a magnitude 100 times worse than Clintons and much more damaging to the US and the world. Of course these lies are so far just alleged. But if proven true then Bush should and would go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever.

Red, the point is of course, that they are still alleged yet some on this board are stating as fact that Pres. Bush lied.

Who is the known liar in those two groups?

Clinton but it's assumed by the vast majority that all politicians are liars and Clinton's lies about his sexual escapades weren't surprising. Now if Bush or his Associates are proven to have blatantly lied those lies would make Clinton's seem as trivial as they actually were.

I was actually comparing Bush and the people stating as a known fact that he has lied. They have no proof to present when you press them on it.

Are the people that are saying that the Pres. lied being truthful or are they just relying on (their) faulty intelligence?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter

How about giving it a few more milliseconds and trying again. Clinton isn't the president. Bush is. Seems like a significant difference.

Oh wow, you know, you're right! Bush is the President. You're a real genius. I guess that means nobody brings up Bush in response to criticism of Clinton, then.

There we go again. If I had a dollar for every time someone justified Bush's actions by attacking Clinton, I could have bought my own President by now.

I'm sorry that so many of you are so lame that this is the only way you can defend Bush. As etech explained so nicely, you're just "wrong and stupid" if your only criteria for supporting Bush is that he's NOT-Clinton. Granted I can't find any intelligent reasons to support Bush either . . . but that's why I don't

I wish you wouldn't make up lies about what I posted.

I said

Wrong, the only reason to bring up Clinton and his lies is to point out the hypocrisy of the ones that are devoting their lives to bashing Pres. Bush.

If it is true that Bush purposely lied to the Nation and the world about Iraq I'd say his lies were on a magnitude 100 times worse than Clintons and much more damaging to the US and the world. Of course these lies are so far just alleged. But if proven true then Bush should and would go down in history as one of the most corrupt Presidents ever.

I would have to agree, but as long as the reconstruction of Iraq is successull, history will be very forgiving. That being said, democrats had better starting putting a iraq reconstruction plan together just in case they win 04.

You think the Dems stand a chance of winning?