I'm not saying that nobody in the Admin has been convicted of anything; my point was the the free accusations based on appearances which are subjected to political preferences do not carry a lot of weight. President Bush and VP Cheny are regularly labeled as unconstitutional, treasonous traitors!!!!! Oh for the days of Fascroft....
No, what's telling is the lengths you'll go to defend a bunch of criminals. Have a great weekend giddy
could it be b/c they do things like... 1) start wars based on lies which lead to the deaths of thousands. 2) authorize torture, in violation of the 1996 war crimes act - by u.s. law, what they authorized was a felony. by international law (which we signed onto), what they authorized constitutes war crimes. 3) wiretap american citizens w/out a warrant - by u.s. law, a felony 4) pay news columnists to write stories favorable to the administration - by u.s. law, a felony. 5) plant fake reporters (who also happen to be gay male hookers) in the white house press corp to ask the president soft-ball questions 5) merge this country into the north american union - a violation of the sovereignty of this country - in my book that makes them 'treasonous traitors'.
I personally feel that much of the rhetoric directed at supporters of the Admin. is overheated and is often too quick to call people treasonous. I don't think you are totally off base to call people on that. What I'm wondering then is do you feel it is right that people who support the Admin. also call critics treasonous traitors?
Too quick to call them treasonous? Maybe. That's sort of a matter of opinion, but it's certainly true that the Bush folks and their supporters introduced that line of thinking into the debate so it's a little stupid for them to complain when it's reflected back at them. But too quick to call them liars and criminals? Hell no. It's well past time. And it's well past time to hold impeachment hearings on any number of issues.
i dont know where you get that feeling from its all in the approach of criticism. If its reasonable, well thought out, non rhetorical, fair and not mean spirited, then let the criticism roll. For example; i dont feel that iraq was the right war because x, y, z. However, if its hate filled, non realistic, un-open for debate, 'agree with me or you're a moron' type of criticism, then thats more than suspect. For example, bush is a liar and a criminal! the former, you can actually talk to. The latter is just a blow hard
Donkeylogic, you try to protect GW of criticism no matter what form its in. For some reason you feel that he should not have to face accountability.
hate is irrelevant in this context even as it is totally understandable given the current circumstances. and there is nothing unrealistic about saying bush is a liar and a criminal. it happens to be true.
Show me where I said it was right? There's a great tendency (myself included) to blend all the opposing arguments together and assign them to everybody on the opposing side. I know some few have expressed that but, again, some few.
You know how many markets, airports, hotels...not to mention the thousands of innocent iraqi civilians our military have blown up.
Saddam was given 90 days or more after a dozen years of flipping the UN off to get out or hell would break loose. It did. He and his inner circle are gone. So much love for his people....
