This is the most useless poll ever... for one I think we all know that the Bush haters have a strong hold on these forums and secondly I know for a fact my view of "morals" are completely different the the vast majority of everyone's here. Morals are subjective and vary from person to person and they usually vary greatly... if you'd like yet another poll or topic to prove just how many of the posters here can't stand George W, then by all means... pat yourselves on the back for another job well done.
I bet very few people think that lying is morally correct. In the context of starting a pre-emptive war with lies and deception, I suspect most people find that morally repugnant.
lol you guys are still on the bandwagon? so I guess "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" on national TV is better? The bottom line Bush didn't lie. There have been COUNTLESS finds of weapon cache's that were in direct violation of the UN security council. There were long range balistic missles that they weren't supposed to have, ingredients for chemical weapons, un-weaponized chemical weapons caches. Feel free to ignore the facts that we had every right to go in there to uphold the UN security council even with the faulty intelligence... your blessed Democratic leaders had the same intelligence the President did and voted to invade, so give it a rest already! As I said before, this topic is simply another chance for you all to bang the "we're liberals and hate bush" war drums... We all KNOW that 90% of the posters in this debate forum can't stand Bush and the vast majority of them are liberal to begin with so what is the freaking point? Why not stick to topics that actually have discussions worth caring and talking about.
Umm, just pointing out that no worries mentioned lying as morally wrong, this is a topic on morals is it not? Asking this question here is like asking a group that is 90% fat if cake tastes good... we all know the answer before the topic is even started.
I don't believe Bush lied, but we could argue that point all day. I'm making the point that Clinton (the Democratic posterchild for a wonderful president) had far from clean hands... see Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda and the Balkans for further details.
Why did Bush twice claim that a report said Iraq was within 6 months of nukes, when the report he cited never even existed. Then finally it claimed it was mistake and that he meant to use a different report. It turns out that the report he cited on his third attempt wasn't even in existence at the time of Bush's original statement. What is that if it isn't a lie? What was the purpose behind that lie? Why did Bush at first claim that he hadn't really known Chalabi or have close relations with him, and then later see a picture where Chalabi was the guest of honor at a whitehouse function? What is that if not a lie? Why did Bush claim that he wished Saddam would comply with resolutions so that the situation could be resolved peacefully, and then we see a whitehouse memo that says Bush thought about disguising a plane as a UN plane and trying to get the Iraqis to attack it, in order to gain approval for a war with Iraq? Why did Bush claim that his reason for asking congress for AUMF was to strengthen his position in order to preserve the peace, when from evidence above he was intent on going to war?
Bush didn't lie, he was misled by liars and people of 'special interest' who only fed him the information he needed to make a decision favorable to what they want him to do.
The genocide in those countries are walks in the park? Millions dead while Clinton ignored their cries for help? Yeah, walk in the park you're right.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/03/29/doctrine.html Great Time article about Clinton's policy or lack there of on cleansings.
Clinton's failings do not make Bush have strong moral standing. I never voted for Clinton, and I disagree with a lot that he did, or didn't do. If you would like to start a thread about Clinton's moral standing that is fine. But it has nothing to do with Bush's.
When Clinton stood up and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," I knew he was lying and it disgusted me. There have been a number of times that Bush has stood up and said things that I either knew to be lies at the time or found out later were lies and it has disgusted me. Why did Clinton get impeached for his lie and Bush has not been censured in the least for his? Politics. It doesn't matter what public official does the lying, we should all be disgusted and demand the liars head on a platter (figuratively speaking).
