Attempt to ban gay marriage fails.

[Scrappy Amazon]

Eirene....my comments weren't meant to offend. Maybe I misuderstood. I was basically agreeing with you.

[Lesa]

Oops, I missed this...

Irene said:

yup dick cheyney's daughter is gay and she does have that web site but since Bush decided things Cheyney has been quiet. Bush is a pompous ignorant man. I pity anyone of his grandchildren who happen to be gay if that, per chance, ever happens.

He's so ignorant that he doesn't even know that Social Security is a Federal program.

"The Democrats want the federal government controlling
Social Security like it's some kind of federal program.”  ~ George W. Bush

Scrappy said:

Very true. My spelling ability is atrocus…….atroe….horrible. But at least I can SPEAK my own language with a modicum of success. And I don’t make up my own words.

I'm sure you could even learn how to pronounce Abu Graib after a few months, which he never seemed to do.

Good choice. But I have to ask myself…….why do you even have a picture of him in the first place. Unless of course you were using it for dart practice.

I don't really have a picture of him, lol, but if I did, that's one of the things I would do with it.

Am I wrong....or doesn't a DUI conviction prevent him from holding office?

I doubt it, otherwise I don't see how he could be running again.   But then again, we are talking about a member of the all-powerful Bush clan here.

Hi Piper

I'm not particularly for or against any one political party.  I have voted for some Republicans in the past and I'm sure I will again.  It all depends on the candidate.  Nope, it's the Bush administration I have the problem with.  I was going to vote for Kerry because I thought he was the lesser of the two evils; but now that I've learned a bit about him, I'll be voting for him because he seems to understand what's going on, and what's more, he seems to care.  Of course, he's a politician, so I could be wrong, but it would be a stretch to even think that he volunteered for so many good causes in his lifetime, just under the slim chance that he might be nominated for President of the U.S. someday and wants his record to look good for it.

The other day, one of our customers asked me if I've been watching the Democratic National Convention.  I told her how I saw Clinton's speech and loved every minute of it.  She told me Clinton is a liar.  So I wonder, what does she consider to be worse?  Lying about a little pot-smoking back in the 60's and lying about having a mistress while he's President?  Or lying about why we actually went to war in the first place and got so many of our kids killed?  There were no WMD's, and there was good evidence to prove that, before Bush arbitrarily declared war on Iraq.  No, the reason we went to war is because the Bush administration wanted to gain control of Iraq's oil.

Declaring war on Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.  Osama did.  Have we caught Osama?  No.  When was the last time anyone from the Bush administration said anything about actually trying to catch Osama?  It's been so long since I've heard them say anything, that I sure as heck can't remember.

The Bush administration used 9/11 in an attempt to gain world support to go to war with Iraq.  Many Americans bought into it out of fear, but the rest of the world had no reason to buy into it.  They were able to look at things a little more objectively, and they saw the Bush administration for the greedy tyrants that they are.  That's why so many other countries hate us.

So why didn't we stop once we sent the Al Qaida running away with their tails tucked between their legs, instead of continuing on to look for Saddam when he had nothing to do with 9/11 and our leaders knew he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction?  Oil.  Our kids are dying over oil, when a large percentage of the world's oil is already right here in our own country.

I want leaders who actually know what's going on.  Someone who knows what it's like for those kids in Iraq, and someone who knows what it's like for us here, struggling to make ends meet from paycheck to lousy paycheck.  I don't want somebody who was born into wealth, who doesn't care about the poor, and who only wants to be the most powerful man in the world, no matter how much the rest of us have to sacrifice for it.

Sorry about the rant, Piper.   Maybe I should bring back "thepeoplesvoice" at New York Times.

Scrappy said:

People who throw the bible stuff out there should read it once in a while.

Yes, and I also think that Bush needs to learn how to differentiate the Bible from the military.

Dubya said:

All Texans are proud that our state is the home to so many fine military units, including the great 1st Calvary Division.  ~George W. Bush

It's cavalry, George, not the hill where Jesus died.

[piper]

I believe there were links between Al Qeada and Saddam not direct links to 9/11, but the 9/11 commission could not rule out the link between Bin Ladin and Saddam. People usually dismiss this by saying that Bin Ladin and Saddam did not like eachother, but history his rich with leaders that didn't like eachother that forming alliances. Hitler and Stalin is a great example of this. Dictators from Nations which one is complete opposite of the other, then after Hitler breaks with the pact, England and the US ally themselves with the Soviet Union, which the US will oppose later. Nations don't exactly have the best of friends to form alliances. As the saying goes, "The enemy is my ally."

As far as WMDs this too I believe Saddam did posses. First he signed a treaty with the UN at the end of the gulf war, which not only acknowledges that he had them, but also that he would disarm, and finally to show that he did disarm. However, he failed to do so. He even frustrated the previous administration, by not letting us inspect where we thought he had WMDs. What I found the most ironic, is that people that I know voted for Gore, and are voting for Kerry, forget that Gore campaigned on unilateralism. He wanted to go into Bosnia and to stop the ethinic cleansing then to rebuild them. He also talked about Saddam and WMDs when he campaigned. Even Bill Clinton supports the war in Iraq, but the next line that usually follows this is, "I would have done it differently" or "He would do it differently."

People also like to point out Cheney's connection to Haliburton for the reason for the war. I admit it's easy to make the link because he chaired the company, but in a way his connection to Haliburton warrants an unfair criticism of him. This is because Haliburton is one of three companies in the entire world that does what they do is help to rebuild nations. Clinton back in 1999 had a no contest bid for a contract in Bosnia to help rebuild the country. But I wouldn't say that Clinton had a side deal going on with Haliburton. Their relationship with our government goes back to the Second World War. They also help to rebuild Vietnam and Korea I believe. Like I said, that's the kind of business they would do, so if Gore was in the Whitehouse, the same thing would have happened.

Speaking of Gore, I believe everything being equal, if he was in the Whitehouse instead of Bush, and doing the same exact things Bush is doing right now (I do believe he would be doing the same things or at least I hope so.) people who support him now, will be making the case for the War in Iraq.

[Lesa]

...but the 9/11 commission could not rule out the link between Bin Ladin and Saddam.

Ah, but they couldn't find anything to show a link, either. I guess we should go after every evil dictator in the world, since we can't rule out the possibility that any of them could somehow be linked to Osama Bin Ladin.

Even Bill Clinton supports the war in Iraq, but the next line that usually follows this is, "I would have done it differently" or "He would do it differently."

I would do it differently, too. I would either send in enough troops to get the job done, or I would pull them all out, instead of making it more and more like Vietnam.  The only thing Bush will accomplish at this rate is getting most of our kids over there killed.

Speaking of Gore, I believe everything being equal, if he was in the Whitehouse instead of Bush, and doing the same exact things Bush is doing right now (I do believe he would be doing the same things or at least I hope so.) people who support him now, will be making the case for the War in Iraq.

I doubt he would do things the same way, but if he did, I would have the same problem with him. Like I said, it's not a Democrat or Republican thing here. Even Republican politicians who have the inside scoop are fed up with Bush.

[piper]

Lesigner said:

Ah, but they couldn't find anything to show a link, either. I guess we should go after every evil dictator in the world, since we can't rule out the possibility that any of them could somehow be linked to Osama Bin Ladin.

The intelligence community said that Al Qeada had met with Saddam ofiicials at least 3 times.

Lesigner said:

I would do it differently, too. I would either send in enough troops to get the job done, or I would pull them all out, instead of making it more and more like Vietnam.  The only thing Bush will accomplish at this rate is getting most of our kids over there killed.

It's easy to second guess the president. Things aren't so bleak over there as they appear on TV. Remember "good news" is boring. Bad news is compelling. I have read letters online from soldiers who are frustrated about the war coverage. What they are experiencing over there, isn't what they're seeing on the news.

Also, I don't think it would be wise to have pulled the troops out too early. The Iraqi police force don't have the training and we needed to train them. Plus if we would have left suddenly, it would have created a political vaccuum and the insugents would have taken over.

Lesigner said:

I doubt he would do things the same way, but if he did, I would have the same problem with him. Like I said, it's not a Democrat or Republican thing here. Even Republican politicians who have the inside scoop are fed up with Bush.

I respect your opinion and since Gore's not in the Whitehouse, we can only guess. I'm just going by what he said in the Presedential debates. He did seek to rebuild Bosnia and also deal with Saddam.

[piper]

The other day, one of our customers asked me if I've been watching the Democratic National Convention. I told her how I saw Clinton's speech and loved every minute of it. She told me Clinton is a liar.

I have to go back to this quote because the person you were talking to wasn't talking about him lying about smoking pot, she was most likely saying that he was lying in his speech. Couple of examples of this was when he mention that the Bush administration faile to sign the Kyoto treaty (He called it something else, but I forgot what he said.) Anways, it would have been impossible for Bush to sign the treaty because he wasn't even in the Whitehouse yet. This happened under the Clinton administration and Clinton made a wise decision not signing it, because neither did Russia or China sign it. It would have crippled us if we have signed the treaty, and would have left us vulnerable against Russia and China. Another example is when Clinton critisized Bush from not agreeing with the ABM treaty. This was a non issue, because the ABM treaty was proposed treaty between the US and The Soviet Union. The USSR does not exist anymore, so how can you have a treaty with an entity that doesn't exist?

Their are more examples of this in his speech, but I honestly can't remember. I would have to look at a transcript and read it further.

[Kiwi]

In my opinion I don't want either Kerry or Bush running this country. Bush because he is way to conservitive and wants everyone to believe what he believes and Kerry because he is so darn wishy washy. One time he says this, another time he says that. I can't even figure out what he is for and isn't for, and frankly I don't think he can either. Kerry bashes his comrads from the war too much when these people risked thier lives for this country in a war that this country started. It is not in good taste to make you comrads look bad and talk badly about them. You owe your life to your comrads. The fact that he is wishy washy makes me leerly of what he will actually do if he gets into office.

As far as Clinton goes: I truely can not stand him. He is a liar, a jerk, and a bad influence on the world.

Hopefully one day a woman will run this country just like in all the truely civilized countries.

[Melodic Mistress]

Hopefully one day a woman will run this country just like in all the truely civilized countries.

Actually, I'm sure the chances are pretty high that in the next couple of decades or so, a woman or a minority ethnicity will become president.

Here I go: lol, back into the conversation!

Opening a different perspective and point of view to look at (other than the actual running candidates)

I find that this is not the only time that many voters have felt a strong distaste for both parties -- the numbers are growing and we find more and more Americans aligning with independent parties -- which indirectly helps a certain party over the other since that basically takes away votes from a candidate.

And moreover, dealing with the actually polling numbers (just throwing some statistics at ya!), the polling numbers are actually pretty scary -- there are a significant amount of less voter turn outs in the past couple of presidential elections and it's terrifying to know that the few that are actually voting are determining how this nation is being governed. Exit polls from the California recall showed that a great majority of these voters were not even college educated; some could be asked about what our three branches of government are -- and end up not knowing a single one!

The race isn't the way it should be run -- we should be voting for the best political candidate and instead, it's being run by the most wealthiest. I remember a while back -- a president was amazed at a grocery scanner! Yes... I'm definately reassured that at one time our commander-in-chief had been amazed at what the average american deals with on a daily basis...

It's so frustrating that we now have to resort to 'none of the above' -- all this political bashing and hypocracy is driving everyone insane... make it stop!

Oh: And just to throw some more opinion on the original topic of gay marriage...

I really do hope that this does not get taken to Supreme Court because I really don't think it's the best idea for the judiciary branch setting a precedent on how we should marry. And whatever happened to separation of church and state....

~Jessi

[Scrappy Amazon]

Hopefully one day a woman will run this country just like in all the truely civilized countries.

One can only hope.......I doubt however that it will happen in my lifetime. Still too many men in control of the money and positions.

~~~~~ Blessed Be ~~~~~

Back at ya......three fold.

[Lesa]

Sorry this is late, and it's not very thorough, but I've been really busy lately and don't have time for a thorough reply.

Couple of examples of this was when he mention that the Bush administration faile to sign the Kyoto treaty (He called it something else, but I forgot what he said.) Anways, it would have been impossible for Bush to sign the treaty because he wasn't even in the Whitehouse yet.

The Kyoto Climate Change Treaty
and the Future of our Forests

(Late Winter 2001)

Further attempts to reach an agreement fell apart in the closing days of the Clinton Administration. The onus for a final Kyoto Treaty deal now falls to George Bush Jr. as talks resume this year.

BBC News ~ What is the Kyoto treaty?

The agreement was dealt a severe blow in March 2001 when President George W Bush announced that the United States would never sign it.

It sounds like Clinton tried to reach an agreement, but Bush flat out said we'll never sign it.

Another example is when Clinton critisized Bush from not agreeing with the ABM treaty. This was a non issue, because the ABM treaty was proposed treaty between the US and The Soviet Union. The USSR does not exist anymore, so how can you have a treaty with an entity that doesn't exist?

Apparently, Russia must have inherited that treaty once the USSR broke up.

CNN.com ~ U.S. quits ABM treaty

2001

President Bush said Thursday the United States has notified Russia that it intends to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, starting a six-month timetable for withdrawal and opening the way for the creation of an anti-missile defense system.

whitehouse.org ~ ABM Treaty Fact Sheet

The intelligence community said that Al Qeada had met with Saddam officials at least 3 times.

Where did they get that information? From those they called “high-ranking Al Qaida detainees,” while they were being tortured at places like Abu Graib? Do we even know whether or not they were actual members of the Al Qaida?

CNN Transcript w/Rumsfeld ~ Sept 30, 2002

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, late last week the administration spoke of evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaida, especially in terms of training for chemical weapons development. Condoleezza Rice said that part of the evidence came from interviews with Al Qaida detainees, including some high-ranking ones.

I have a two-part question. First, though, do you think that that information and those links are significant?

RUMSFELD: You know, for me to put a characterization on the precise words that she used and I used, which were close to being identical, I don't think is useful. They are what they are. The unclassified facts, as we've stated them, are what they are; and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If we said, as we did, that an Al Qaida member who is now in custody told us that Iraq provided unspecified chemical and biological weapons training for Al Qaida members and that there's evidence from other sources of that cooperation, that is what it is. And somebody, then, has to take that not in isolation, but along with all the other information and piece it together, and then come to a conclusion as to what it means and how they feel about it. And I don't know that I would want to add to anything that I've said.

QUESTION: Well, do run the risk of being mislead by people who would probably love to see us attack Iraq, divert our resources, inflame Muslim world, maybe drag Israel into this?

RUMSFELD: Would you say that again?

QUESTION: Wouldn't Al Qaida love to see...

RUMSFELD: That's a pip.

(CROSSTALK)

RUMSFELD: That's a pip. I'm trying to track it.

QUESTION: I saw a newspaper cartoon...

RUMSFELD: Wouldn't Al Qaida like to see us drawn into a war with Iraq to their advantage. Is that roughly it?

QUESTION: Yes. I saw a newspaper cartoon this morning that said -- had the president saying, "Won't any world leader please support me in attacking Iraq?" And Osama bin Laden raised his hand.

[piper]

It sounds like Clinton tried to reach an agreement, but Bush flat out said we'll never sign it.

Actually, that's not true, Clinton did sign it in '97, but fails to send it to the senate for ratification.

www.asashop.org/autoinc/jan99/taking.htm

To be fair, it would have met opposition in the senate, but later the Clinton administratrion admits that the treaty was flawed.

Economists from the Clinton White House now concede that complying with Kyoto's mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases would be difficult — and more expensive to American consumers than they thought when they were in charge

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-12-kyoto.htm

About the ABM treaty, my point still stands. This quote here, to that link that you have provided backs up my assertion.

Today, our security environment is profoundly different. The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia is not an enemy, but in fact is increasingly allied with us on a growing number of critically important issues. The depth of United States-Russian cooperation in counterterrorism is both a model of the new strategic relationship we seek to establish and a foundation on which to build further cooperation across the broad spectrum of political, economic and security issues of mutual interest.

Since we are on the subject of Clinton, he too made link between Al Qeada and Iraq in relation to the terrorist bombings in the Sudan in '98.

"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

[Lesa]

I said:

It sounds like Clinton tried to reach an agreement, but Bush flat out said we'll never sign it.

Piper responded:

Actually, that's not true, Clinton did sign it in '97, but fails to send it to the senate for ratification.

www.asashop.org/autoinc/jan99/taking.htm

To be fair, it would have met opposition in the senate, but later the Clinton administratrion admits that the treaty was flawed.

From the article:

Despite opposition from Congress and industry, President Clinton has signed the Kyoto agreement that would commit the United States to significant reductions in greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Accord reached in Kyoto, Japan has been signed by almost 60 nations.

He must have thought it was a good thing. It sure sounds to me like it would have been good for our environment.

From the article:

Two-thirds of the Senate must support the agreement for ratification. At this time, the Clinton administration has decided not to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification. Officials recently met in Buenos Aires to continue the talks that began in Kyoto.

It doesn't say that Clinton "failed" to submit it. It sounds like his administration advised him not to submit it, and he listened to their reasoning. So my point still stands... "It sounds like Clinton tried to reach an agreement, but Bush flat out said we'll never sign it."

Piper said:

About the ABM treaty, my point still stands. This quote here, to that link that you have provided backs up my assertion.

Despite all the rhetoric and how things may seem comfy cozy between us, Russia still has weapons pointed at us, and we still have weapons pointed at them.

Piper said:

Since we are on the subject of Clinton, he too made link between Al Qeada and Iraq in relation to the terrorist bombings in the Sudan in '98.

www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

The article doesn't claim that Clinton said that. That was the Justice Department saying that, not Clinton, and Clinton did not wage war against Saddam over it.

The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime...

...The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Regardless of who said it, Bush used that same faulty "intelligence" to take it upon himself to wage war on Iraq; unlike Clinton, who must have realized that the indictment was questionable at best.

From the beginning of the same article you cited:

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush (himself) made the same statements.

The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

* The word (himself) above was added by me for emphasis.


Despite all this, I never said that Clinton wasn't a liar. In fact, I remember specifically saying that he lied about pot smoking and his affair(s). But his lies never got anyone killed, at least not that I know of, and everything Clinton said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention this year was factual and can be backed up.

I found it particularly interesting when he openly called himself a draft dodger (yes, he used the word "dodged"), when his speech was originally written to say that he "could have gone" to Vietnam but didn't.

Back to my original point, Bush's (and most of his administration's) lies have gotten, and are still getting, our kids killed in Iraq, plain and simple. I personally expect some amount of dishonesty where politicians are concerned, but this has got to be the most dishonest (and bigoted) bunch that has ever run this country, and they need to go.

[piper]

I said he signed the Kyoto treaty, but decided not to sent it to the Senate, because A) He thought it would face opposition and B) It would have hurt our economy.

Everyone wants to behave as if 9/11 did not happen. We need to protect the homeland, so I think it was prudent for us to back out of the ABM treaty. Also that quote I pulled out backs up my initial statement. Call it what you like spin or whatever, but the quote basically says that the Soviet Union no longer exists as an entity, the cold war is over, and that Russia is no longer our enemies.

I have say while I was googling yesterday, I read that the Clinton administration was also looking into backing out or at least modifying the ABM Treaty. The treaty was agreed to in '72 and I believe out dated.

The article doesn't claim that Clinton said that. That was the Justice Department saying that, not Clinton, and Clinton did not wage war against Saddam over it.
Quote:

But William Cohen said they used that intellegence to justify bombing those aspirin factories in Iraq, so since Clinton is the commander in chief, and the head of our arm forces, he would have to be aware of the situation.

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

Regardless of who said it, Bush used that same faulty "intelligence" to take it upon himself to wage war on Iraq; unlike Clinton, who must have realized that the indictment was questionable at best.

You're entitled to your opinion. I find it funny that people levy these criticisms against the president, when the previous administration was saying the same thing that Bush is now saying. They both have the same "intelligence" BTW. It was also what Al Gore campaigned on. He used to say the same exact things that Bush was saying and that was Saddam had WMDs and we needed to disarm him. Gore also wanted to go into Bosnia unilaterally and then to rebuild them. I remember he said this in the first presidential debates of the 2000 election.

Despite all this, I never said that Clinton wasn't a liar. In fact, I remember specifically saying that he lied about pot smoking and his affair(s). But his lies never got anyone killed, at least not that I know of, and everything Clinton said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention this year was factual and can be backed up.

What about that soldier that died while in action in Bosnia? Then the drag his dead carcass all over town.

What about the Branch Davidians? I admit David Koresh was a wacko, but there were women and children in that compound, and the still were when that ATF agent or whatever, "accidentally" knocks over that lantern, which in turns burns down the entire builing with women and children inside of the building.

I found it particularly interesting when he openly called himself a draft dodger (yes, he used the word "dodged"), when his speech was originally written to say that he "could have gone" to Vietnam but didn't.

He left our the part where he said, "I loathed the military."

Back to my original point, Bush's (and most of his administration's) lies have gotten, and are still getting, our kids killed in Iraq, plain and simple. I personally expect some amount of dishonesty where politicians are concerned, but this has got to be the most dishonest (and bigoted) bunch that has ever run this country, and they need to go.

I don't think Bush lied, and I also believe that he still thinks he did the right thing. I also find it interesting last week, while Bush was speaking to a group here in Northern VA, he asked of John Kerry and I'm paraphrasing, "The American people have to know, knowing what you know right know, would you have done the same thing." By this he meant would Kerry have still supported going it Iraq knowing about no stockpiles and "faulty" intelligence. Kerry then replies, "Yes, I would have."

[Lesa]

Piper said:

But William Cohen said they used that intellegence to justify bombing those aspirin factories in Iraq, so since Clinton is the commander in chief, and the head of our arm forces, he would have to be aware of the situation.

From the article:

One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Sudan is in Africa, not Iraq, and he was targeting Osama (the real culprit), not Hussein.

Piper said:

They both have the same "intelligence" BTW.

Yes, as I already said, the same faulty intelligence.  One chose to wage war over it, one didn't.

I said:

Despite all this, I never said that Clinton wasn't a liar. In fact, I remember specifically saying that he lied about pot smoking and his affair(s). But his lies never got anyone killed, at least not that I know of, and everything Clinton said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention this year was factual and can be backed up.

Piper responded:

What about that soldier that died while in action in Bosnia? Then the drag his dead carcass all over town.

What about the Branch Davidians? I admit David Koresh was a wacko, but there were women and children in that compound, and the still were when that ATF agent or whatever, "accidentally" knocks over that lantern, which in turns burns down the entire builing with women and children inside of the building.

What "lies" did Clinton tell that led to that?

Piper said:

He left our the part where he said, "I loathed the military."

Without having heard this before and therefore not knowing what context it was said in (or if it was even said at all), this next comment is based on your statement alone and assuming that it's correct:

When he said it X number of years ago, he said it in past tense (meaning, he did loathe the military when he was dodging the draft, but didn't necessarily loathe it as President, or whenever it was that he said it).  I don't think it matters that he didn't repeat that statement in his speech a couple of weeks ago, because if he dodged the draft, then it should be a given that he didn't particularly care for the way the military was being run at the time of the Vietnam war.

So now that we've gotten completely sidetracked here, let's try to bring it back on track.  My original point wasn't trying to make Clinton out to be some saint, and I wasn't trying to make a contest out of who was the better President.  The only reason I brought his name up at all is because he gave a great speech that told it like it is.  If we continue to talk about Clinton, we might as well bring up every world leader, past and present, who has rightly criticized Bush.  But we'd have to break up our posts in that case, because ProBoards only allows for 10,000 characters per post.

Piper said:

I don't think Bush lied, and I also believe that he still thinks he did the right thing.

Yes, he did lie.  He claimed that WMD's were actually found when they were not.  And if he thinks he did the right thing (if he even thinks at all), then that's a problem.  What do you think he did right, and what do you think he did wrong?

List of Bush's lies

Cooking Intelligence

Lie:
"[Our ] intelligence was based on views shared by intelligence agencies around the world and the United Nations."

---

Fact:
As detailed more fully below on a claim by claim basis, their views were not shared by UN inspectors, the IAEA, US intelligence analysts and weapons experts who questioned or disputed the conclusions reached by the Bush administration.

Lie:
"I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had and they looked at exactly what I looked at.”

---

Fact:
Senators were outraged when the learned that “intelligence info given to them omitted qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration’s case for war.”

Many House members were only convinced to support the war after the administration “showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents,” even the US Air Force disputed the notion that Iraq’s UAV’s were being designed as attack weapons.

Pretext

Lie:
Bush repeatedly attempted to play the part of a reluctant warrior who would act if "war was thrust upon us."

For example, in an October 7, 2002 address to the nation, Bush stated that seeking a UN "does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."

---

Fact:
the Bush administration began planning to invade Iraq at its very first National Security Council meeting in January 2001, with the President stating "Go find me a way to do this."

Administration documents planning for a post-war Iraq date back as early as January and February 2001 - months before September 11th.

Lie:
The Bush administration repeatedly justified a war with Iraq based on its known possession of weapons of mass destruction.

---

Fact:
The Bush administration’s chief Weapons Inspector, David Kay, concluded after 10-months of investigation that “I don’t think [WMDs] existed.”

In February 2003, both the weapons inspectors and the IAEA told the White House that there was “no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear-related activities” and “they had not found any weapons of mass destruction.”

When asked about the failure to find Iraqi WMDs by Dianne Sawyer, President Bush replied “So what’s the difference.”

There's a huge list of lies on that page, and the above quotes are just a few of them.  Here's that link again, for anyone who wants to read more.

Also, check out this link where Bush and his Administration lie about Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities.

Piper said:

I also find it interesting last week, while Bush was speaking to a group here in Northern VA, he asked of John Kerry and I'm paraphrasing, "The American people have to know, knowing what you know right know, would you have done the same thing." By this he meant would Kerry have still supported going it Iraq knowing about no stockpiles and "faulty" intelligence. Kerry then replies, "Yes, I would have."

That's the problem with paraphrasing, because he didn't say that.  Kerry said that if he had known there were no WMD's, he would still vote to give the President authorization to decide whether or not to go to war.  Kerry's obvious mistake was not checking Bush out a little more thoroughly to know whether or not Bush was actually qualified to make that decision.

[piper]

Now that's pretty low. I refuse to explain anything that comes from a source entitle "bushlies.net." I'm sure that's a pretty objective source. Says it all in the title.

[Lesa]

Of course bushlies.com is out to criticize the Administration, but it doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't true.  They collect documented facts from reputable sources and put them all on one website in order to educate people on all the problems with our President and his Administration without them having to dig all over the internet for their information.  If you had done your research instead of dismissing a website based solely on its name, you would have known that.

They name names and dates for every issue that they address, so if the information is false, then it should be easy enough to disprove now, shouldn't it?  Well, since you didn't bother to research their claims, let me help you out by directing you to just a few of the many reputable sources that the information is taken from.

Iraq: Conditions in US prisons may break international law - June 30, 2003.

It confirms this statement from bushlies.com (unless, of course, you're going to call Amnesty International a bunch of liars, too):

Fall 2003

Lie:
In October, Bush proudly declared that “Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers.”

---

Fact:
Paul Bremer “repeatedly raised the issue of prison conditions.” Secretary Powell also urged action on this issue at several White House meetings.

How about CBS?

We [the IAEA] have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq. However, as I have just indicated, a number of issues are still under investigation and we are not yet in a position to reach a conclusion about them, although we are moving forward with regard to some of them. To that end, we intend to make full use of the authority granted to us under all relevant Security Council resolutions to build as much capacity into the inspection process as necessary.

That obviously correlates with this statement from bushlies.com that I have already quoted above:

In February 2003, both the weapons inspectors and the IAEA told the White House that there was “no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear-related activities” and “they had not found any weapons of mass destruction.”

Oh, and here's another article from CBS:
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Other issues I mentioned in my previous post can be confirmed by reading the Washington Post and the New Yorker.  Are you going to call them liars, too?

Before you call someone "low" for posting the truth, it might be a good idea to do a little research first.  Of course, it's up to you if you choose to stay uninformed, but it would be nice if everyone would inform themselves before voting Bush back into office for another 4 years.

[Bosatsu]

What do you think bush would do if he got re-elected?

[Scrappy Amazon]

Is that a rhetorical question? I hope.

[Bosatsu]

Yeah I pretty much know what he would do but how will he do it?

[Scrappy Amazon]

How has he managed to screw things up thus far? Everything is a matter of opinions. We all have them.

[Msjulier]

San Francisco:
The California Supreme Court on Thursday-Aug. 12-voided the nearly 4000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The court said the city illegally issued the certificates and performed the ceremonies, since state law defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.