Clinton screwed the intern. Bush sent 432 Americans, 53 British, 17 Italians and one Polish, to death in the Iraq war as of November 25, 2003
A government that supports a free nation only steps in when people are hurting (emotionally, physically, economically and whatnot) each other. Under Bush things like the Patriot Act take away your constitutional rights, and more importantly your individual, human rights.…
Article comments
26 - Al Barger
Yeah, that AM's a funny one.
27 - Bat Boy
Thanks AM I appreciate your support. but I want to point out that my post does not appeal to a wing.
Al as much as you try to discredit people like me, you seem to have just as much heresay to develop your points.
Your business about Bush being a liar is unfounded. Now, being a politician and under incredible pressures from all directions, he's going to spin and cut corners a bit.
If cutting corners takes a country to war than it certainly is a big deal. War of all things should be dealt with absolute honesty and credibility. Why did we have to go without the UN? Cutting that corner just makes our country more dishonest in the eyes of the world.
28 - JR
George W. Bush, July 2001: "I Love New York."
Actually Bush has been heard to say privately that he hates New York.
George W. Bush, Jan. 10, 2002: "I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the-what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994."
Actually Ken Lay indicates that they met at least as far back as when Bush's father was still in the White House. What's more remarkable is the dissembly in the second sentence - in fact Lay donated three times as much money to Bush's gubernatorial campaign.
George W. Bush, Oct. 5, 2002: "In return for the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time, we expect every child to be educated."
Actually, Bush had asked for a smaller increase than the 15.8% Congress approved for 2002. The previous year under Clinton the education budget was increased by 18.5%.
George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The statement as phrased implies an assertion of the truth of the accusation; one "learns" things that are true. Whereas the administration had reason to doubt the truth of the claim since the CIA had called it into question the previous September. A properly hedged statement might have been something like "The British government BELIEVES..."
George W. Bush, Jul. 14, 2003: "Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts."
Four months previous does not meet the widely accepted definition of "subsequent".
George W. Bush, Apr. 26, 2003: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."
The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center found that 8.1 million taxpayers would recieve no tax cuts.
George W. Bush, May 30, 2003: "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations' resolutions and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on.
"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
No comment needed.
So it seems that the accusation that George W. Bush is a liar has some substance. It's doubtful that he could be impeached just for lying, since he hasn't lied under oath. But give him time. Two of the last three presidents have had the opportunity to testify under oath (one lied, the other couldn't remember anything), and the current political landscape doesn't bode well for an end to such legal proceedings.
29 - JR
Al Barger, Comment #20: "That is still not, however, the same as Clinton blatantly lying under oath in front of a grand jury, which is not even 1% of the lying that bastard did, much of it about things far more significant than a blowjob."
So presumably you can come up with at least 99 other lies told by Bill Clinton?
30 - Joe
So if Bush, does in fact love New York, as opposed to non-attributed reports, not withstanding that it's possible to both love and hate New York, then JR is a liar? No, that means, he was just wrong, mistaken, or misinterpreted facts. There is a distinction. Is that lost on you?
31 - Craig Lyndall
I have said this once and I will say it again in relation to the Saddam to terrorist connection, THERE WILL NOT BE A BLATENTLY PROVABLE PAPER TRAIL. Saddam didn't write checks to these people. He didn't go eat at a public restaurant. Hell he didn't go out and have coffee with a pair of sunglasses on.
With all the money he was embezzling (against UN restrictions) from his convoluted oil trade, don't you think he had plenty of surplus cash lying around? You don't think any of that money was filtered toward terrorist resources including but not limited to Al Qaeda? If you are waiting for conclusive evidence like video or a paper trail then you are going to be waiting a long time.
If you are walking through the woods and a tree is lying on its side, are you willing to believe that it fell, or are you going to assume it just grew laterally because you didn't see it in the act of falling? Use some common sense people. Drop your agendas and be realistic.
32 - JR
He ought to know when he met Ken Lay, or how he feels about New York City (particularly after losing that city big time in the election eight months earlier). Yeah, he could forget, or feel differently from moment to moment. But at what point do you just excuse every lie ever told by anybody? Seems like one could excuse Clinton's lie by that reasoning, no?
I guess it all comes down to what you choose to believe about the guy. Hell, in a couple of those instances I think Bush really did believe what he said as he spoke; although I hesitate to call those "honest" mistakes because it seems to me it's his responsibility to know what his tax plan does and to keep abreast of the intelligence reports behind a decision to go to war. But some of those are, as far as I'm concerned, outright lies. It may be unkind, but I don't think my belief is "unfounded".
33 - Joe
I'm not talking about excusing lies, I'm talking about labeling a person a liar for being wrong. Are you saying there is no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to reach the conclusions or make the decisions that Bush made?
34 - Eric Olsen
There are reasonable points to be made on both sides of this and they are being presented pretty well, but I would ask everyone involved to remember this: EVERYONE ON EARTH is a liar to a greater or lesser extent. Most of them are white lies, most of them may in fact be for the benefit of others ("No dear, your new hairdo does not look like shit in a blender." "No, I don't think you're stupid, just distracted.")
So the point is not whether Bush and Clinton are liars - they are and so are you - it's how those lies affect governmental policy, the conduct of official business, the motivation behind them, and to what degree they are calculated statements of untruth. There are mistakes, miscalculations, wishful thinking, selective emphasis, etc., some of which is dissembling but possibly none of which is lying.
Nothing we know of that Bush has done, and nothing Clinton did come close to being impeachable offenses. The entire impeachment process against Clinton was grotesque political demagoguery of the worst kind, and was an egregious waste of time, effort, attention, and money. I spit on those who committed it, and I do the same for those who would do the same to Bush. If you don't like him, vote against him in a year.
35 - JR
Joe: My answer to your question would have to be "no". By which I mean there was such evidence in some cases.
But I'm not sure that's a reasonable standard. Does just any piece of evidence to support a conclusion make it reasonable to pass that conclusion off as the truth?
I can go outside and look around and the evidence of my eyes indicates that the Earth is flat. In fact, that evidence led many reasonable people throughout history to conclude that the world is indeed flat. However if I told you the world was flat I would be lying, because I purport to be a reasonable person and as any reasonable person knows these days there is an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence to suggest the world is actually spherical.
36 - JR
I'm in agreement that pretty much everybody lies, not least presidents.
I'm also sympathetic to those who consider George W. Bush's, er, untruths to be a bit more serious than those of many (but not all) other presidents. On the other hand, were they impeachable offenses? It's not against the law to lie. I might not mind seeing him impeached, but I really don't see a strong enough case on that alone.
At this point I'm satisfied to have my say next year.
37 - Eric Olsen
well-put, I am very full
38 - mike
*burp*
39 - Mark Saleski
hey, i'm not a liar...
i cooked a turkey today on a webber grill with hardwood charcoal.
it was great.
and that's no lie!!
40 - Al Barger
So Eric, you say that nothing Clinton did come close to being impeachable offenses
Lying under oath in front of a federal grand jury numerous times is a felony. That in itself is a legitimately impeachable offense.
Much more serious was the witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
That's just the same kind of shit that brought Nixon down.
41 - Craig Lyndall
This isn't justifying Clinton's lying because that would be ridiculous. BUT, I must agree with Eric that the whole sexual witch hunt that the republicans put on Clinton was stupid. It was an embarassment for our nation and honestly what was the purpose of the whole charade? It was a disgusting display of the party system in this country.
42 - Al Barger
Granted, it would have been far better to have impeached Clinton for the murders in Waco, or for selling us out to the Chinese communists for campaign contributions.
43 - Craig Lyndall
You sound about as extreme as the "pinkos" you call out each and every day.
44 - Al Barger
Craig, in the immortal words of my hero Barry Goldwater, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
I don't criticize people simply for having views that might be labeled "extreme." I criticize them for being dishonest or ill founded. Being extreme is fine, but you still have to be rational and justify what you're saying.
45 - Joe
JR, for your flat earth analogy to hold water there should probably be some consideration as to intent, if you state the world is flat without knoweldge of the fact of the empirical proof against your assertion you are not lying, you are simply mistaken. For the analogy to be applicable to Iraq it would have to be an established fact that Iraq did not posess WMDs. I don't think anyone could convincingly make that case prior to the invasion. Certainly there were plenty of people who held that opinion, but the capability to undeniably back the assertion with facts was absent.
46 - JR
Joe: I'm sorry, I didn't mean that to be an analogy per se. I just wanted to point out that one convincing piece of evidence doesn't always justify a conclusion.
I'm reluctant to hold the uranium statement up as a clear cut example of a lie. Nor do I mean to criticize Bush's decision to go to war, as I essentially agree with it. That case should probably be made by those more qualified to speak from the pacifist viewpoint.
In my initial comment I just wanted to point out that, taken literally, the uranium statement was untrue. It's also an instance where Bush was making the comment as an "authority" whose responsibility was to be as accurate as possible. In this case it was possible to be slightly more accurate.
Did Bush believe Iraq had WMDs? Given Saddam's past behavior, I certainly hope so! Although I've had my doubts about any recent nuclear weapons program, I'm not confident to this day that Saddam didn't have chemical or biological weapons close at hand. So it's possible that Bush deliberately fudged on the uranium line, but I'll grant that it seems more likely he believed that one exactly as phrased.
47 - Jim Carruthers
Hey, lay off Bat Boy, at least he's served in Iraq (and defended 'murrica around the World) unlike Shrub, or any of the right-wing-nut-jobs and chicken-hawks posting here. Fewer chicken-hawks and more loud-mouthed schnooks, I say.
How do I know this? I read it in the official organ of the truth The Weekly World News.
And, importantly, this crucial story is being covered elsewhere, which has made the US media the shining beacon of truth and justice in the rest of the world:
48 - Bat Boy
It is very true. And it is my superior bat ears that help me most against my enemy. that and my ruthlessness that comes from my upbringing.
49 - Jim Carruthers
And it is my superior bat ears that help me most against my enemy
Well beware, because it did Man Bat no good in the early 70s. In fact he wound up a parapelic. Ironic considering that in Hollywood, it was the fate of the actor who played Superman.
50 - chubby politics
The way in which you present your arguments makes for a blog that lacks cohesion and logic. I do, however, agree with you that some of the actions taken by Bush are impeachable. The war on Iraq was a clear deception and the amount of civilians killed there is so unforgivable it almost constitutes war-crimes. I think he should resign not only for legal reasons (there are plenty) or an almost Ted Kennedy-esque background, but because the policies he has enacted have been extremely damaging to our reputation in the rest of the world. He has handled a recession by augmenting the disparity between the rich and the poor, employing a brand of supply-side economics that was proven ineffective in the first years of the Reagan administration. The worst crime, perhaps, is the declared War on Terrorism. To declare war on an idea is to fail before the first battle has begun.
51 - Bat Boy
you put it well, better than I did. this was written under a very angered state of mind which is my excuse for not being logical or cohesive.
52 - Shark
BEARS REPEATING:
"To declare war on an idea is to fail before the first battle has begun."
53 - boomcrashbaby
Joe in comment 4 says: The contrast between a former president screwing an intern, vs. a numerical accounting of lives lost in Iraq....serves to point out how tenuous a grasp of the situation many people have.
I agree. They aren't really comparable. In one instance, a single person got screwed. In the other, millions did.
54 - Kendra
I agree in deed that Bush should be impeached but we need to get him good.We need to really see what laws Bush has broken so he can really go down. Bush also needs to admit that he did his country wrong.
55 - Kendra
The beef between 50 cent and Ja-Rule needs to just stop. That stuff is so old, their both great rappers so just give it up.
56 - Fred
Bush went to war without seeking the approval or support from Congress, and then he fired and replaced anyone in Congress who would seek to bring accountability to his position. The Iraq War is not a war, it is a one-sided military invasion. Get that into your heads! Bush made it up, he's there only for the domination of the oil wells. Oh how the truth hurts. This is what the Democrats are avoiding, this is why they're in the minority. Until this issue is brought to the news headlines again, we are all going straight into the fire.
57 - Dave Nalle
Bush cannot fire members of Congress, and the oil wells are in local Iraqi control as well as the money they generate. If you're going to attack Bush maybe try to get your facts halfway straight.
Dave
58 - BC
Given the gift of retrospect I found reading the early comments concerning this blog morbidly laughable.
It is nearly 2008 and nothing has been done.
What do we do?
Why hasn't anything been done?