Yes, we are there and we need to finish to job. Whatever that means. I think we can't just pull out and leave Iraq to chaos and worse. We've started this and need to see it through. But to what end? What will constitute a victory? Will expectations be lowered bit by bit as this drags on, as it has every indication of doing? I think they will. But, regardless of the ultimate outcome, if the American people were lied to about the reasons for going to war, then that was a criminal and impeachable act. And Bush must pay for it. This is one time where he won't get a "free ride" because of his father or his connections. He wanted this job. It's time he figured out just what that responsibility entails... which includes not lying to the American people about the reasons to go to war.
if the American people were lied to about the reasons for going to war, then that was a criminal and impeachable act. Good to see someone keeping their eye on the ball. I would add that to be impeachable it doesn't have to be shown that Bush perjured himself from a legal standpoint, just that he knowingly deceived to get us into war.
Excellent point. He lied to us about something that demanded absolute honesty. We were duped, and it's shameful that people aren't holding him accountable.
the problem with the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard we have for impeachment in the Constitution is that nobody knows what it means....people make guesses...but during the Clinton impeachment it was certainly nebulous.
You guys are grasping at straws, there is NO way to prove someone LIED, exaggerated, sure. But even Clinton has said that he thought there were WMD. It was all based on supposition and opinions...which can be right or wrong. This is all just a bunch of witch hunting democrats who hate George W. You can't win on policies, because Americans are more fiscally conservative, so you try to smear...... Whatever !! DD
OK, so it's better because Bush went to war based on supposition and opinions? Thousands died because Bush had a hunch? And why would Bush "exaggerate" if he knew his evidence was solid?
Of all the stupid things you have written in this thread, this is probably the stupidest. What's so fiscally conservative about doubling the size of the budget deficit with tax cuts for the rich and increasing spending and running record long term deficits? That's like saying quitting your job and then spending your days in the champagne room getting lapdances is fiscally conservative. "Whatever !!" yeah, that pretty much sums it up.
Sam, Did you get a tax cut? When I talk about fiscally conservative, I am speaking about most people voting with their own wallets. The dems have alienated even the moderates with their spending and taxation policies. Bush may have exaggerated, in fact, I believe he did, but the end result is a positive, so I am willing to give him some more time to see the grand middle east plan through. DD
And why was that? Maybe, because of this? http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/2002/11/04_Palast.html If you wanna get more pissed at conservative propaganda, check this stuff out: Faking the Lynch story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm Faking the Saddam statue pictures: http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001244.php It goes on and on. I can't stand Bush's regime.
Dakota: People voting with their wallets does not make them fiscally conservative. You maybe just don't understand the term. Further, the people "voting with their wallets" are not making smart choices if they're voting for $300 cash in their pockets while their states and their country run huge deficits and property taxes and education costs go up. A lot of people who got the $300 came out behind. The Democratic Party is the party of fiscal conservatism now. I know, it's a wild concept, but that's flipped in the last decade. The Dem's are the deficit hawks now. But that's not what this thread's about. You obviously didn't read the articles posted in the thread or you wouldn't be clinging to this exaggerating versus lying thing. A very well respected, top intelligence analyst who worked directly under Powell says he knew what he said to the UN was false when he said it. That's not exaggerating -- it's lying. He also implicated everyone up to Cheney in knowing the 16 words were false when they were used in the SOTU. Using them anyway is not an exaggeration -- it's a lie. And then there are the myriad lies by omission and the lie that Iraq was an imminent threat when intelligence indicated they just weren't. And maybe it can't be proven they lied (I think it can, actually, through testimony from people like Thielmann), but I'd sure like to hear these guys deny it under oath. That's how Starr got Clinton and it was on a far less serious matter -- let's say sexual harassment instead of sex and then let's say perjury. I think even Max, as someone who took Clinton's crime very seriously, would agree that lying to the American people in order to get permission to send Americans to die under false pretense is far more serious.
I probably did get a small tax cut (which was probably offset by higher state and local taxes and fees anyway to cover their own budgetary shortfalls, but who's counting?). So that means I am going to vote in favor of having to pay off interest on the budget deficit and the banana republic fiscal policies pursued by the current adminstration? Fortunately, I don't buy into that scam. I plan on being around in 2020, unlike President Bush, so I don't feel like paying for it, or having to deal with the economic stagnation that long term deficits cause. You can thank me in 2020. I can't believe you still post this crapaganda. Jesus, is this from a Bush-dukakis attack ad? Just because republicans repeat something enough doesn't make it true. Under president Clinton, the budget deficit was eliminated, and we brought federal spending down to lowest level as a % of GDP in the postwar period, and the lowest level of any industrialized country, as did the tax burden as a percentage of GDP. Under president Bush II, we have increased spending and raised our budget deficit to an alltiime high. If you don't believe me, look it up www.cbo.gov. but let me guess, your answer is "Whatever !!" But what part of 1-2 = -1 is so hard to understand?
Oh, I acknowledge this for sure. However, I attribute it more to our raging economy propped up by the Tech Dot.com sector than anything Slick Willy did. Still, I did not mind Clinton in office..... DD
Are we so divorced from the concept of democracy that we allow our leaders to lie about the evidence presented to the people that send our citizens to war? Is your wallet more important than sending young men and women off to die under false premises?
The raging economy that was assisted by the balanced budgets and fiscal discipline of the 90's, as the government did not have to borrow money and crowd out private investment. You don't acknowledge it at all. You applied the hackneyed, "tax and spend" label, when reality shows that the democrats employed " tax and cut spend" approach in order to bring the budget in line. The current administration and those in charge of the republican pary have a "cut tax and spend" approach, which you claimed was fiscaly conservative. That's absurd, and i don't think I need to explain why.
