United States Presidential Election 2008

[Great_Gig]

I cannot wait for a reply to these two ^

[dode74]

the decision to go to war was based upon the best intelligence available, approved by the United Nations

- The decision to go to war was taken 8 months before we went. Source with particular reference to "July 23, 2002: The Downing Street Memo was written, in which British intelligence said "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.""

 

- The intelligence about WMD was flawed and deliberately misinterpereted in order to acheive the aim of a war in Iraq. Source

 

- The UN did not give any approval for military action. Source - with particular reference to "it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced."

 

Forgive me for:

a) using wikipedia as a source - I know its limitations.

b) not giving a much more thorough debrief

but I'm a bit busy this morning.

[Rehit]

last time i checked the UN did not rule the US...

they could always just place sanctions against us and we could just continue on like anyone else they file sanctions against.

oops...

that might backfire since we might kick them out of the US and then cut off our funding for them.

this could get ugly since we pay the majority of their bills...

the UN is a useless money pit that has absolutely no effect with their sanctions...

[LoArmistead]

the UN is a useless money pit that has absolutely no effect with their sanctions...

 

Ditto. Reference: North Korea, Iran, Palestine, North and Central Africa. Waste. Of. Money.

[ExRoadie]

- The decision to go to war was taken 8 months before we went. Source with particular reference to "July 23, 2002: The Downing Street Memo was written, in which British intelligence said "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.""

 

- The intelligence about WMD was flawed and deliberately misinterpereted in order to acheive the aim of a war in Iraq. Source

 

- The UN did not give any approval for military action. Source - with particular reference to "it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced."

 

Forgive me for:

a) using wikipedia as a source - I know its limitations.

b) not giving a much more thorough debrief

but I'm a bit busy this morning.

But you left out the first part of the quote which says, "According to most members of the Security Council,it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced."

 

It reads quite a bit differently when you include the entire sentence.

 

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States have repeatedly used UN Resolutions to start military actions in the past and will continue in the future so your argument is moot.

 

The bottom line is simply that Saddam Hussein could have complied with the many United Nations Resolution and avoided everything that has happened. It was his hidden agenda that drove the situation and the blame lies solely on him.

 

Sure there were lapses in intelligence, sure there were hidden agendas from countries involved in the corrupt Oil For Food program, sure there were countries that didn't want to see their business deals with Iraq disrupted.

 

To blame President Bush and PM Tony Blair while dismissing blame from everyone else is simply flawed.

 

Just like the Yellow Cake Uranium story, there was much more going on than what has been reported on and there is still more of the story to be reported as details are released.

 

While some good information came out of The Iraq Study (Surrender) Group, the United States Institute of Peace is nothing more than a lobbying group setup as a non-profit for tax purposes. They are still insider politicians at the core and agenda driven fund-raisers on the surface.

[Kash]

Dear Friend Kash,

 

Upon further reflection I've found an issue with your President Clinton Impeachment posts. You state in one post that they "impeached him for a blowjob!". Once it was pointed out that the Impeachment was for perjury, you replied with, "Don't give me that nonsense." then follow it up with "Yes, he perjured himself and that was what they ultimately impeached him for". It's good that you finally corrected yourself but just think about the position you hold that it was the Republicans fault.

 

How on earth were the Republicans to blame for the situation? If President Clinton hadn't put himself in a compromising position he would never have been questioned about it and chosen to lie to investigators.

 

I understand that as human beings we are all flawed in some way. Many politicians have fallen prey to their holier-than-thou attitude and being from Louisiana I have seen my fair share first hand.

 

Now, on to my failing posts.

 

I surely left out a few items in my rebuttal to your posts about how damaging the Republicans have been in Congress, but you've got to admit that Welfare Reform while not perfect was an excellent step in the right direction and it wouldn't have been passed without applying pressure to the White House through some "tough love". Even with the increase in overall population, the Welfare rolls are at their lowest point since the mid 1960's. Granted, the percent of the Federal Budget dedicated to Welfare hasn't decreased that much but imagine where we'd be if the same percentage of the population was still on the Welfare rolls.

 

I'm sure I've left something out and look forward to your measured response.

 

The whole "they impeached him for a blowjob" was clearly hyperbole. However, if you had more closely read my post, you would have seen that the entire mess would not have happened had the Republicans not went on a witch hunt and tried to pin anything they could on the man. This forced Clinton to perjure himself, hence leading to the impeachment. The Republicans are hypocrites, they'll go after a Democrat for sexual promiscuity but they won't go after Catholic priests for molesting boys, they won't go after members of their own party who are pedophiles or try to solicit s-ex in public bathrooms, and they didn't do anything with the DC Madam issue. They don't have any morally superior ground to stand on, so they have no right going after the leader of the other party for his sexual activities. Clinton did nothing to compromise the security of this nation, he did nothing that was a high crime or misdemeanor, so the Republicans are definitely to fault for that ridiculous spectacle.

 

Whoa Nelly!

 

Gotta call you on this one. Hillary Clinton had no reason to apologize for voting in favor of moving against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Regardless of her policies I find it refreshing when a politician takes responsibility for their actions and doesn't give in to popular opinion.

 

I'm not saying Hillary Clinton should have apologized, just that her not doing so was one of the big reasons as to why she lost the nomination.

 

Anyway, for you crazies who kept calling for his birth certificate, here ya go

 

And for you zealous Reagan idolizers, enjoy

[LoArmistead]

And for you zealous Reagan idolizers, enjoy

 

 

Yeah because Obama's message is so like his father's.

 

Ron Reagan's always been a whackjob. I think there is a Reagan daughter who is the same way. Michael Reagan, on the other hand, is still a staunch conservative.

[suchuwato]

Probably faked, but amusing.

 

[Kash]

Just listened to it, it was pretty funny

[ExRoadie]

They don't have any morally superior ground to stand on, so they have no right going after the leader of the other party for his sexual activities. Clinton did nothing to compromise the security of this nation, he did nothing that was a high crime or misdemeanor, so the Republicans are definitely to fault for that ridiculous spectacle.

But I guess only Republican and Religious perverts are news worthy.

 

You get zero points for trying to justify that it's proper for the President of the United States to practice oral acts with an Intern inside the Oval Office at the White House. This is simply unacceptable behavior and opens the President to all sorts of compromise.

 

Once again, if it was so OK and President Clinton hadn't lied to investigators he would never have been impeached. Lying to Federal Investigators is a felony, just ask Scooter Libby.

 

If it was no big deal getting a hummer from an Intern in the Oval Office then there shouldn't have been an investigation. Upon first light, the investigation should have been over when President Clinton appeared on national TV to admit the act. He didn't do that because it was wrong and he knew it was wrong as evidenced by his actions and the actions of those around him to cover up the situation.

 

He thought he was above the law when he lied and that's the bottom line.

 

Crimes are crimes regardless of morality. Anger and resentment are never going to be valid reasons to hate members of the opposing party.

 

Now lying and being caught lying are two different things. The affairs of past Presidents have been well documented including the late night dalliances of President Kennedy and his Brother. At the time the media choose to ignore these character flaws for the "good of the country".

 

It was only after Woodward and Bernstein along with "Deepthroat" that things in Washington got chippy.

 

So let's take the situation of the drive-by-media and former Congressman Gary Condit. The man was the principal suspect in the Chandra Levy disappearance/murder. The media repeatedly listed Congressman Condit as "Rep. California" knowing full well that he was the Democrat Representative from the 18th Congressional District in California.

 

Or how about Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana famous for $90,000.00 in food containers stuffed in his freezer? Once again he's the Democrat Congressman representing the 2nd District of Louisiana.

 

Why don't you spend some quality time on google and do some research on the Democrat scandals of former members of the House and Senate that the drive-by-media has glossed over.

 

Daniel Inouye - Gus Savage - Barney Frank - Brock Adams - Fred Richmond - John Young - Wayne Hays - Gerry Studds - Mel Reynolds - Teddy Kennedy - Gerry Eastman Studds

 

My personal favorite is that the guy that replaced Mark Foley in Florida is currently under investigation. Tim Mahoney, Democrat, Florida, was promoted as the answer to Republican Corruption during the 2006 campaign yet here he is with his own corruption charges tied to a . scandal. Makes you wonder why we aren't hearing more about this guy leading up to the 2008 elections.

 

One more scandal not directly related to Congress but continuing this theme is the former head of the Virginia ACLU. Charles Rust-Tierney was found using his credit card to join child pornography web sites. This event was barely covered by the drive-by-media and quickly dropped off the radar. But I guess only Republican and Religious perverts are news worthy.

 

You might detect a pattern there because the media is purposely misleading the public as to the party affiliation. Instead of using the familiar D or R along with the name, they choose to use the more obtuse REP for Representative which can easily be mistaken for Republican.

[suchuwato]

omg! It's all a big conspiracy, I see now

[Kash]

But I guess only Republican and Religious perverts are news worthy.

 

You get zero points for trying to justify that it's proper for the President of the United States to practice oral acts with an Intern inside the Oval Office at the White House. This is simply unacceptable behavior and opens the President to all sorts of compromise.

 

Once again, if it was so OK and President Clinton hadn't lied to investigators he would never have been impeached. Lying to Federal Investigators is a felony, just ask Scooter Libby.

 

If it was no big deal getting a hummer from an Intern in the Oval Office then there shouldn't have been an investigation. Upon first light, the investigation should have been over when President Clinton appeared on national TV to admit the act. He didn't do that because it was wrong and he knew it was wrong as evidenced by his actions and the actions of those around him to cover up the situation.

 

He thought he was above the law when he lied and that's the bottom line.

 

Crimes are crimes regardless of morality. Anger and resentment are never going to be valid reasons to hate members of the opposing party.

 

Now lying and being caught lying are two different things. The affairs of past Presidents have been well documented including the late night dalliances of President Kennedy and his Brother. At the time the media choose to ignore these character flaws for the "good of the country".

 

It was only after Woodward and Bernstein along with "Deepthroat" that things in Washington got chippy.

 

So let's take the situation of the drive-by-media and former Congressman Gary Condit. The man was the principal suspect in the Chandra Levy disappearance/murder. The media repeatedly listed Congressman Condit as "Rep. California" knowing full well that he was the Democrat Representative from the 18th Congressional District in California.

 

Or how about Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana famous for $90,000.00 in food containers stuffed in his freezer? Once again he's the Democrat Congressman representing the 2nd District of Louisiana.

 

Why don't you spend some quality time on google and do some research on the Democrat scandals of former members of the House and Senate that the drive-by-media has glossed over.

 

Daniel Inouye - Gus Savage - Barney Frank - Brock Adams - Fred Richmond - John Young - Wayne Hays - Gerry Studds - Mel Reynolds - Teddy Kennedy - Gerry Eastman Studds

 

My personal favorite is that the guy that replaced Mark Foley in Florida is currently under investigation. Tim Mahoney, Democrat, Florida, was promoted as the answer to Republican Corruption during the 2006 campaign yet here he is with his own corruption charges tied to a . scandal. Makes you wonder why we aren't hearing more about this guy leading up to the 2008 elections.

 

One more scandal not directly related to Congress but continuing this theme is the former head of the Virginia ACLU. Charles Rust-Tierney was found using his credit card to join child pornography web sites. This event was barely covered by the drive-by-media and quickly dropped off the radar. But I guess only Republican and Religious perverts are news worthy.

 

You might detect a pattern there because the media is purposely misleading the public as to the party affiliation. Instead of using the familiar D or R along with the name, they choose to use the more obtuse REP for Representative which can easily be mistaken for Republican.

 

This post was absolutely fantastic. Completely misses the point of my post and goes off on a cuckoo tangent, but fantastic nevertheless

 

When did I say the President getting a blowjob by an intern was OK? I didn't. What I said was that it wasn't "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," which in case you've forgotten, is the basis for impeachment as laid out in Article II Section 4 of the Constitution (remember that piece of paper?). So the whole lead up to the investigation was nothing more than a witch hunt. If it weren't for the Republicans throwing everything at Clinton in the hopes that something would stick, he wouldn't have been put in the compromising position of lying to federal investigators. My point was that Republicans claimed to be morally superior when they went after Clinton for such a petty thing, when in reality they are not only just as bad, but worse than the Democrats.

 

Why do I say worse? Because the Democrats aren't hypocrites in that they don't claim to be morally upright like the Republicans claim themselves to be. They pander to the religious right, saying that they're God fearing politicians who will do God's work, but then they get caught molesting a child or sexually harassing a member of the same .. So not only are they sexual deviants, they're a bunch of fags too, which I'm pretty sure is a bigger sin among the religious right (and don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the religious right, it sickens me that people like that exist in this country).

 

The bulk of your post was in vain, I never said the Democrats were saints in comparison to the Republicans. But you want to know why the Republicans get more press when they get caught in a scandal? It's not some vast media conspiracy, but it's because the American people love watching hypocrites fall. They love seeing the downfall of those who make claims of being good people and who accuse the other side of being corrupt. The media companies are only interested in their bottom line, so when a Republican scandal makes for good TV, you know they're gonna cover it.

 

Also, what I don't understand is this obsession with the "drive-by media" and the "liberal media." People watch news outlets whose bias they agree with, and so the companies sell what the people want. Look at Fox, it panders to the right because that's what its viewership wants. So when the rest of the country is watching the more left leaning media, doesn't that just mean the people are left leaning as well?