Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 81
  1. #1

    MSNBC Poll - Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war

    Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey

    17764 responses with a %94 yes vote
      0 Not allowed!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,305
    I forsee :

    MSNBC is clearly democratic, now if we asked this on a unbiased network, such as FOX...
      0 Not allowed!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,693
    "Not a scientifically valid survey."
      0 Not allowed!

  4. #4
    Originally posted by Hiccups
    "Not a scientifically valid survey."
    It is not scientifically valid because it is a web poll that is not in a controlled envrionment. It still means near 18,000 people have voted and %94 said he is a liar.
      0 Not allowed!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    I am a big bush supporter and even I had to vote yes.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: MSNBC Poll - Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to w

    Originally posted by RossH
    Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248969/#survey

    17764 responses with a %94 yes vote
    I think this all depends on what you mean by Bush misleading the nation. Do you mean "tried to mislead"? Myself, being a US citizen and many people I know residing here, no one I know thought it was true, including myself. So, some countries saying he duped or mislead the nation or US citizens is often the incorrect statement. Not that you meant this, but I thought I'd personally state this for my sake and many of those people I know. Apparently he duped enough people. The simple fact is, if they had the proof to justify a war in the name of WMD, then they'd have not had any problem presenting the actual proof and reason to the UN or the nation.

    The fact he didn't have that proof is troubling, since without any proof to show the nation or the UN, he still found it good enough to go to war. I think more people would have been behind the war if he'd simply made a case about why Saddam should have been removed from power and the crimes he committed. While I'd have been more in support of that reason, I don't think there was such a huge urgency (of course, the claim of WMD was the reason for the 'urgency').

    Anyway, we, the people, can't do a damn thing about what our president does. We have no power to stop it or vote against it, so hopefully more of the other nations will understand that "we, the people" are not responsible for the actions of one man or his panel of lackey's and stop thinking all the American people are suckers and are gullible. After all, the US people didn't vote him into office, at least not the first time. I'm still amazed the goof ball won a second term, but oh well, I just live here and pay taxes, I guess it's none of my business. Of course, I don't speak for anyone but myself, I'm sure there's plenty of people that support him and the war too, and even people that believe there was WMD's and still are.
      0 Not allowed!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051
    Originally posted by justadollarhostin
    I am a big bush supporter and even I had to vote yes.
    So, how are you a big Bush supporter, seeing you believe he mislead, or tried to mislead the nation? I'm only curious, I'm not getting on your case about it or anything.
      0 Not allowed!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Originally posted by Tim_Greer
    So, how are you a big Bush supporter, seeing you believe he mislead, or tried to mislead the nation? I'm only curious, I'm not getting on your case about it or anything.
    No harm taken at all. I don't believe anybody honestly agrees with everything a president does/says in their term, and even worse it is commmon for people to feel like they are picking the "lesser of the two evils" when it comes to presidents in the United States. I like having Bush as a president and I am fond of quite a few of his policies. I voted Bush over Kerry and I would do the same thing again (I will also most likely try to re-ellect him, but that always depends on who he is running against). However, when it comes to the way he took the war on Iraq I believe he did "misleed" the country into believing facts that I think he knew to be false. If I would have known then what I know now about Iraq (speaking about the weapons that they had) I would have in no way supported the war.

    That being said I could point out a case when almost every president in the history of the nation has done something that I did not care for. It almost seems like it is part of the job anymore. If Kerry had been elected I am sure he also would have done something that was stupid and looked down upon by a large portion of the nation. The best way to put it is that bush gets a B as president in my book. I can accept a president misleading the nation (weather it was intentional or not) one time in his term. Without knowing all the facts it is hard to put a hex on him.

    It's really a hard position to explain, but I hope i've done at least a semi-good job.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,567
    I recently read a report in The Times which talked about how an excuse for going to war with Iraq had to be found. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of people now believe that Bush misled them – no WMD has been found; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they now believe America shouldn’t have gone to war.
      0 Not allowed!

  10. #10
    Originally posted by Anjay
    I recently read a report in The Times which talked about how an excuse for going to war with Iraq had to be found. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of people now believe that Bush misled them – no WMD has been found; but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they now believe America shouldn’t have gone to war.
    Your talking about the Downing Street Memo:

    http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...593607,00.html
      0 Not allowed!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Well the only poll that counts is election day. It's just a pity that the 94% vote in this poll, didn't equate to removing Bush from office last election.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!
      0 Not allowed!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051
    Well, politics and people's opinions are just too difficult to try and debate anyway, so I was just curious. I guess my issue isn't the attempts to mislead, but that people have been sent off to war and so many have died, and so many have been wounded. If this was a Water Gate scandal or something, I could see saying everyone gets one big mistake as a president, but the lives, the costs and the problems it created, I find pretty disturbing, where I'd have preferred nearly anyone else in office than him. I mean, this is a big deal in my book, but that's my view.

    I'm not even saying that he didn't have inaccurate information that made him believe there was really a threat--I'd find that much more comforting in why he sent people off to war. However, the fact he wasn't able to present anything with any substance to convince anyone else, pretty much tells me that he did know it wasn't true. Had he presented something false, not knowing that appeared to be a threat, I could start to understand a reason and justification.

    Of course, because how I personally feel about it, I find it difficult to imagine why anyone would be okay with it to any degree, but I certainly understand and can accept that not everyone agrees with my view or thinks like I do, so that's okay and I won't debate or argue it. I just sort of am a bit verbose about it, because how I personally feel about him and what he did. You are surely right, and I truly believe the choices of candidates has been truly pathetic as long as I've been alive and aware anyway. It's sad and frustrating and unfair and undemocratic and, in my opinion, hardly a sign of a free country where the people don't have a choice (often, sometimes it happens). I'm sure Kerry would have been a bone head, too, but I'd hope no worse. I've seriously thought "at least this guy can't be any worse than this guy" and have been wrong before.
      0 Not allowed!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    Well the only poll that counts is election day. It's just a pity that the 94% vote in this poll, didn't equate to removing Bush from office last election. :(

    Well, that is how I felt. I don't vote, since it doesn't matter (unless you live in a specific county in Florida, apparently), but I did make an effort to vote against him. I didn't see it as a vote for Kerry, but a vote against Bush.
      0 Not allowed!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009

    Re: Re: MSNBC Poll - Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to w

    Originally posted by Tim_Greer
    . . . After all, the US people didn't vote him into office, at least not the first time.

    Not sure what you mean by that. He was elected for his first term, even if it was a judgment from the Supreme court.
    I'm still amazed the goof ball won a second term . . .

    You and me both. I couldn't believe he got there the first time, and didn't think he stood a snowflakes chance in hell for the 2nd term, given the Iraq disaster, his obvious incompetance and Moore's F-911 hack flick.
    . . . I'm sure there's plenty of people that support him and the war too . . .
    I've always supported the removal of Saddam, and if it took a "goof ball" like GBW to do it, then so be it.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!
      0 Not allowed!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    424
    so what if he lied, i dont see anyone doing anything about it. Lets form a rally, that will show him.
      0 Not allowed!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    chica go go
    Posts
    11,858
    i believe that if satan exists, he currently owns real estate inside the mind of george bush.
      0 Not allowed!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051
    Originally posted by 3rdcoast
    so what if he lied, i dont see anyone doing anything about it. Lets form a rally, that will show him.
    You're joking, right? Maybe you missed all of them?
      0 Not allowed!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: Re: Re: MSNBC Poll - Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to

    Originally posted by Aussie Bob

    You and me both. I couldn't believe he got there the first time, and didn't think he stood a snowflakes chance in hell for the 2nd term, given the Iraq disaster, his obvious incompetance and Moore's F-911 hack flick.
    What a hot topic--who would have guessed? :-) Well, some of Moore's theories are more than a little over the top. It's entertaining and I'm glad he isn't afraid to say what he thinks (and make good money by doing it, apparently), but the fact it was so loosely put together with so many strange conspiracies, is what turned a lot of people off and made them discount the actual good points that were valid which Moore had made. So, I don't think it swayed people to really vote any different than they would have.

    Supporters saw it as lies and hated Moore and people against Bush were just saying "Yeah, exactly!" Of course, then there's the normal people that don't get swayed by a movie that watched it and just didn't care and took from it what it presented--some real, valid points and some not to valid sort of kooky theories. I think, had Moore laid off the conspiracy theory stuff more and presented the facts, since they were interesting enough, I believe more people might have had their eyes opened... or not, depending on what you believe.
      0 Not allowed!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,046
    What I dont understand is why this President is allowed to mislead his own people without taking responsibility or facing any serious repercussions. As I've said before, Bush has a plethora of resources at his disposal, he should be able to back up his intelligence with factual information or be smart enough to make an informed decision. He's either very naive which is a quality no US president should possess, or very sinister because he knew the truth about this war the entire time.

    I would have a lot more respect for a man who said "I made a mistake, I apologize", but our current president is such a little peck, he doesn't even have the balls to admit his own wrongs.

    If Clinton can be impeached for lying about his affair, then Bush should be faced with the same punishment. Clintons affair didn't cost us billions of dollars or 25,000 human lives. Those who mislead and lie to this extent are not fit to be in a leaders position.
      0 Not allowed!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051
    A president can do anything they want. The worst that can happen, is they will be impeached. They have the ultimate power. They can't be put in prison, as it would open up too many national security issues, so they'd have to be in their own prison with extremely high security to keep people from having access, and that would be too much of an embarrassment.

    This is why he has nothing to worry about and won't face any ramifications of his actions, assuming it would be proved that he did indeed know. In my opinion, even questioning if he's that stupid seems redundant. I think he is, but I don't think that's why he went to war. I think he's an embarrassment--in my opinion. Not a job I'd want, but he seems to be pretty bad at it.
      0 Not allowed!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Originally posted by case
    What I dont understand is why this President is allowed to mislead his own people without taking responsibility or facing any serious repercussions. As I've said before, Bush has a plethora of resources at his disposal, he should be able to back up his intelligence with factual information or be smart enough to make an informed decision. He's either very naive which is a quality no US president should possess, or very sinister because he knew the truth about this war the entire time.

    I would have a lot more respect for a man who said "I made a mistake, I apologize", but our current president is such a little peck, he doesn't even have the balls to admit his own wrongs.

    If Clinton can be impeached for lying about his affair, then Bush should be faced with the same punishment. Clintons affair didn't cost us billions of dollars or 25,000 human lives. Those who mislead and lie to this extent are not fit to be in a leaders position.
    Where did the 25,000 human lives stat come from?
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,051
    Originally posted by justadollarhostin
    Where did the 25,000 human lives stat come from?
    I actually didn't pay attention to that part, but I'd assume this includes citizens of Iraq and not just US and allied forces?
      0 Not allowed!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Originally posted by Tim_Greer
    I actually didn't pay attention to that part, but I'd assume this includes citizens of Iraq and not just US and allied forces?
    Well, there was this one (cough cough) "organisation", who conducted some kind of study in Iraq to determine how many Iraqi civilians were killed in the conflict. They came up (dart board and blindfold technique, imo ) that there were 100,000 Iraqis killed in the conflict. Then the world's media organisations went into a frenzy on that study, and touted it as fact, and making that pretty much headline news for the following days.

    So maybe that 25,000 was the previous 100,000 figure revised?

    I think there has been 1700 US military deaths and 25,000 injuried, so far in the Iraqi conflict.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!
      0 Not allowed!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,419
    Originally posted by case
    What I dont understand is why this President is allowed to mislead his own people without taking responsibility or facing any serious repercussions. As I've said before, Bush has a plethora of resources at his disposal, he should be able to back up his intelligence with factual information or be smart enough to make an informed decision. He's either very naive which is a quality no US president should possess, or very sinister because he knew the truth about this war the entire time.

    I would have a lot more respect for a man who said "I made a mistake, I apologize", but our current president is such a little peck, he doesn't even have the balls to admit his own wrongs.

    If Clinton can be impeached for lying about his affair, then Bush should be faced with the same punishment. Clintons affair didn't cost us billions of dollars or 25,000 human lives. Those who mislead and lie to this extent are not fit to be in a leaders position.

    it can be argued that clintons inaction and lack of moral fiber are what allowed the current situation to acrue including 9/11.

    clinton should have resigned instead of hanging on and subjecting the nations top office to shame.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000
      0 Not allowed!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Oddly enough within the last 30 years has there been one president the nation has actually loved?
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    Well, there was this one (cough cough) "organisation", who conducted some kind of study in Iraq to determine how many Iraqi civilians were killed in the conflict. They came up (dart board and blindfold technique, imo ) that there were 100,000 Iraqis killed in the conflict. Then the world's media organisations went into a frenzy on that study, and touted it as fact, and making that pretty much headline news for the following days.
    No media organization that I know of touts that study as fact, by any means. On the other hand, none of them that I've seen have actually given a number.

    A website which seems to be very accurate in its number is IraqBodyCount.org. It has a database with all the supposed incidents and their minimum and maximum casualty amounts, as well as extremely specific information like the date, time, location of the incident, target, and weapons used. Of all of the estimations, I would lend the most credit to this site, as they seem very intent on providing as accurate estimations of the Iraqi civilian casualty count as possible, considering the circumstances.

    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    So maybe that 25,000 was the previous 100,000 figure revised?
    The site that I linked to above estimates the minimum Iraqi civilian casualty amount to be 22,353 and the maximum to be 25,341. This isn't counting the US and British military dead, the American and British civilians that have been gruesomely kidnapped and beheaded or shot in the head, and the injured on all sides.

    I don't know about you, but in terms of injuries and casualties, I'd say this war is a disaster.

    Quote Originally Posted by sailor
    it can be argued that clintons inaction and lack of moral fiber are what allowed the current situation to acrue including 9/11.

    clinton should have resigned instead of hanging on and subjecting the nations top office to shame.
    By all means, please attempt to argue this point. I think you'll find no facts to support your claim that he could have prevented 9/11. I'm also quite positive you'll find no facts to support your opinion that he has no moral fiber, as that is quite subjective. If anyone possibly could have prevented 9/11, it was Bush. What was that memo in the August right before 9/11?

    The existence of that August 6, 2001, memo, called a presidential daily briefing, has been reported before, but details about it came out Thursday.

    Asked by Democratic commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor who has read the memo, to recall the title, Rice said: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.' "
    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/
    Last edited by SniperDevil; 06-17-2005 at 07:37 AM.
      0 Not allowed!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Well no death is ever good, but I don't see this as anything close to Vietnam, Korea, etc...

    Also if you go to look at the database, right at the top they mention this:

    This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

    It is up to each person to decide for themselves if they feel the deaths are really the fault of the war or not. By law there is little argument that they are not, but most of these deaths are not military casualties.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by justadollarhostin
    Well no death is ever good, but I don't see this as anything close to Vietnam, Korea, etc...
    Oh, so then it's okay. Yeah, I got your logic there.

    Originally posted by justadollarhostin
    Also if you go to look at the database, right at the top they mention this:

    This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

    It is up to each person to decide for themselves if they feel the deaths are really the fault of the war or not. By law there is little argument that they are not, but most of these deaths are not military casualties.
    The point is, though, that the Occupying Authority (the US and its coalition) has a responsibility, under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, to prevent these deaths. That is to say, it wouldn't be our issue if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
      0 Not allowed!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,419
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    Quote Originally Posted by sailor
    it can be argued that clintons inaction and lack of moral fiber are what allowed the current situation to acrue including 9/11.

    clinton should have resigned instead of hanging on and subjecting the nations top office to shame.
    By all means, please attempt to argue this point. I think you'll find no facts to support your claim that he could have prevented 9/11. I'm also quite positive you'll find no facts to support your opinion that he has no moral fiber, as that is quite subjective. If anyone possibly could have prevented 9/11, it was Bush. What was that memo in the August right before 9/11?

    Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...11.commission/
    ok - so you think its ok to cheat on your spouse and do lewd acts including penetration with foreign objects in the oval office - the highest office and one deemed to be the most respectable in the world? lets see that adultery - which is still illegal in many us states, the military (the pres is the commander in chief), and many parts of the world. hmmm....then there were the other women that he had affairs with in other offices including the governors office and did this while using taxpayers money to cover it up.

    well lets see - he did nothing about aggression against the us which taught the terrorists a lesson that they could come hit us with little or no reprisal. wow - lets look at mogadishu - Clinton really showed them whos boss there.

    I guess you have not covered these important issues yet- I think they go over this in 11th grade - right?
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000
      0 Not allowed!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    Oh, so then it's okay. Yeah, I got your logic there.



    The point is, though, that the Occupying Authority (the US and its coalition) has a responsibility, under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations, to prevent these deaths. That is to say, it wouldn't be our issue if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
    I completely agree that if there wasn't an invasion of Iraq by the coalition it would not be our responsibility, and that it is ours under the Geneva Conventions, but I believe the majority of these deaths would have happened without the war.

    ok - so you think its ok to cheat on your spouse and do lewd acts including penetration with foreign objects in the oval office - the highest office and one deemed to be the most respectable in the world? lets see that adultery - which is still illegal in many us states, the military (the pres is the commander in chief), and many parts of the world. hmmm....then there were the other women that he had affairs with in other offices including the governors office and did this while using taxpayers money to cover it up.

    well lets see - he did nothing about aggression against the us which taught the terrorists a lesson that they could come hit us with little or no reprisal. wow - lets look at mogadishu - Clinton really showed them whos boss there.

    I guess you have not covered these important issues yet- I think they go over this in 11th grade - right?
    How this has started into a Clinton and 9/11 debate is beyond me. I don't think anybody here is arguing that what Clinton did was right, the argument was that what Clinton did would be more (read that word, it's very important, so I'll say it again more) acceptable than Bush lying to the public to get the backing of the Country and go to war which has cost many lives.

    On top of that there is no reason to turn this nice discussion into a debate with name calling or rude remarks like "I think they go over this in the 11th grade". I would also love to hear a proper argument as to how Clinton could possibly have prevented the events that took place on 9/11. Do you honestly think that Clinton taking action on Mogadishu would have prevented the terrorist attacks that took place? If you do that's your choice but I personally feel it is a horrible choice to make. Just what action would you propose?

    Were there any more parts to your argument or were you going to leave it at Clinton's lack of action in relation to Mogadishu is the reason 9/11 happened and that anybody that passed the 11th grade must have the same thoughts that you have. I don't recall anything about that in the 11th grade or any of my political classes, but I do remember an incident we touched on about Communism and Vietnam. We really taught those Communists a lesson and I'm very happy it stopped any other nations from persuing the government of Communism.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by sailor
    ok - so you think its ok to cheat on your spouse and do lewd acts including penetration with foreign objects in the oval office - the highest office and one deemed to be the most respectable in the world? lets see that adultery - which is still illegal in many us states, the military (the pres is the commander in chief), and many parts of the world. hmmm....then there were the other women that he had affairs with in other offices including the governors office and did this while using taxpayers money to cover it up.
    Well, let me turn it around: which is worse, Clinton cheating on his wife or leading the US into a war for absolutely no justifiable reason and costing itself and Iraq thousands of casualties and even more injuries? Even considering equating adultery with deaths constitutes a lack of moral fiber on your part, IMO.

    Originally posted by sailor
    well lets see - he did nothing about aggression against the us which taught the terrorists a lesson that they could come hit us with little or no reprisal. wow - lets look at mogadishu - Clinton really showed them whos boss there.
    I don't know what kind of general aggression you're talking about that al-Qaeda initiated. I suppose there was the 1994 WTC bombing, but anything else I'm rather unaware of.

    Regarding Mogadishu, I've read some about it and seen Black Hawk Down. Isn't that enough?

    No, but in all seriousness, what was Clinton supposed to do? These were guerilla fighters (similar to the Iraqi insurgents we're facing now; do you see any pattern?) and I doubt you can show that kind of people "who's boss". Such a notion seems more like a fallacy than anything.

    Originally posted by sailor
    I guess you have not covered these important issues yet- I think they go over this in 11th grade - right?
    Hmm, yes, I suppose I am incapable of doing research myself. That's what school's for...
      0 Not allowed!

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    No media organization that I know of touts that study as fact, by any means. On the other hand, none of them that I've seen have actually given a number.
    Crikey, it was all over the aussie (and foreign) media, when the story broke. It was around the time of the aussie federal election, from memory. The 100,000 number was banded around by much media at that time. It was even used by the aussie opposition party, in the aussie election run up. I then remember the commentries debunking the figure, and rebuking the media for touting about that figure.

    All and all, we're all experts in highsight, but what's done is done. I guess there's still some folks eager to extract some blood out of GWB, for the overthrow of Saddam, and winning 2 back to back US elections. Open woulds heal very slowly.

    As for Slick Willy, well, he was a famous ladies man that would try and nail practically anything in a skirt. I think he was more a threat to himself, than anyone else.
    Last edited by Aussie Bob; 06-17-2005 at 08:26 AM.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!
      0 Not allowed!

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,046
    Originally posted by justadollarhostin
    Well no death is ever good, but I don't see this as anything close to Vietnam, Korea, etc...

    Also if you go to look at the database, right at the top they mention this:

    This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

    It is up to each person to decide for themselves if they feel the deaths are really the fault of the war or not. By law there is little argument that they are not, but most of these deaths are not military casualties.
    Its not as bad (yet) as previous wars so that makes it acceptable? If we keep going at the rate were going at now, by 2015 we will have killed 250,000 Iraqi's and 20,000 Americans. You're looking at the aftermath statistics of these wars. Were not even close to being done in Iraq.

    You can slice it anyway you want, a lot of people have died while taxpayers have been mislead. It's unacceptable, period.

    Sailor, please. Save your ignorant right winged propaganda for someone stupid enough to actually believe it. It's a circular arguement and no matter how many times its repeated it will never be truth even if you do actually believe this regergitated hogwash. Critical thinking skills encourage the use of "logic", I recommend using it if you get a chance.

    You want to talk about moral fiber? A leader with decent morals would avoid war at all costs, especially this stupid war. According to you, adultery is obviously much worse then murder, lies, war, and stealing.

    Shame is killing thousands of people with a huge smirk on your face while lying to millions of Americans. Clinton was damn wrong for what he did and we spent 12 million dollars impeaching him.

    The difference between Clintons lie and Bush's lie is astronomical. They can't even be compared. Unlike your pal Bushykins, Clinton's lie did not cost innocent people to lose their life, it did not cost 230 billion dollars, it did not cost our military to be at an all time recruiting low, it did not put our troops in harms way, etc...

    Sure, he brought shame to his position, but Bush's lying brings far more shame not only to his position but our entire country and everything our country represents which is freedom and liberty.
      0 Not allowed!

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Originally posted by case
    Its not as bad (yet) as previous wars so that makes it acceptable? If we keep going at the rate were going at now, by 2015 we will have killed 250,000 Iraqi's and 20,000 Americans. You're looking at the aftermath statistics of these wars. Were not even close to being done in Iraq.

    You can slice it anyway you want, a lot of people have died while taxpayers have been mislead. It's unacceptable, period.
    I never said it was acceptable. I don't find any death acceptable that's what I pretenced what I said with the fact that this war is not nearly as bad as all the previous wars that the US has fought (with the possible exception of Desert Shield/Desert Storm). The deaths that would ocur up until 2015 (assuming we are there to then, which is of course a possibility) would be on the shoulders of the Coalition as far as the Geneva conditions are concerned, but in truth they are far from deaths of war. I am not escaping the legal blame for those involved in the war for these deaths, but on a moral front I would not blame the US or any other country involved for the majority of these deaths. Please understand I said the majority of them. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters as I have not devoted nearly enough reasearch as many other people on these forums, but I would be interested and will be looking for stats as far as death rates before and after the invasion of Iraq.

    As far as slicing it the way I want, I believe that if we intentionally mislead that it is completely unacceptable; however, if there was honest intel to give the serious impression that WMD were in Iraq and capable of being used then I believe this thread and the country would find the war to be generally acceptable. If there was an Antrax attack launched on Kuait and the governemnt had known there were WMD in Iraq, I would not be suprised if the country had lashed out against President Bush for not invading Iraq at the time he did. This is all dependant of course on where the blame is really set at. I am suprised we do not see many people blaming Bush's advisors and the CIA for feeding lies to the president (I have no proof of it that was the case or not, but it is a definate possibility). In any event I believe the war was a waste and inappropriate knowing what is known now. I agree that it and any and all deaths associated with it are unacceptable.
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,046
    I understand what you're saying, I can totally see your point of view. It makes sense. My problem is that we NEVER had enough evidence to start this war to begin with. You and I both are smart enough to question information that is presented to us, even if it's been presented as fact. I don't believe anything I have read, or that has been told to me unless I verify the information myself and it fits within a certain criteria.

    I find it funny that Bush held the CIA's intelligence in such high regard when making his claim to justify war, however completely disregarded the CIA's Bin Ladin warning in his PDB. Not only did he have a chance to act on this information, the WTC attack could have potentially been avoided all together had he acted on it. Why did he choose to disregard the Bin Ladin warning? Yet, used the CIA as his instrument when attempting to condone war?

    Me personally, I want answers. I feel that every American is entitled to know the truth. Maybe it was bad intelligence, but it needs to be very clear. The document in question makes a case that the Bush administration knew they didn't have enough information/evidence to start this war, but decided to carry on regardless.

    This document is being touted as the smoking gun on many websites. I prefer that the president did tell the truth even if I dont like him, but if he isn't the impeachment process is well deserved.
      0 Not allowed!

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Apparently the poll is wrong if he was reelected. I mean in 2000 the elections were weird and you could argue that he cheated. But in 2004, it was pretty much straight forward and he won.
      0 Not allowed!

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,046
    Well considering that his approval ratings are some of the worst in history, I guess that makes the people of America a bunch of flip floppers...

    Imagine that, people actually have the ability to look back on something and change their stance or opinion. Who would have thought?
      0 Not allowed!

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Flint, Michigan
    Posts
    5,765
    Originally posted by case
    I understand what you're saying, I can totally see your point of view. It makes sense. My problem is that we NEVER had enough evidence to start this war to begin with. You and I both are smart enough to question information that is presented to us, even if it's been presented as fact. I don't believe anything I have read, or that has been told to me unless I verify the information myself and it fits within a certain criteria.

    I find it funny that Bush held the CIA's intelligence in such high regard when making his claim to justify war, however completely disregarded the CIA's Bin Ladin warning in his PDB. Not only did he have a chance to act on this information, the WTC attack could have potentially been avoided all together had he acted on it. Why did he choose to disregard the Bin Ladin warning? Yet, used the CIA as his instrument when attempting to condone war?

    Me personally, I want answers. I feel that every American is entitled to know the truth. Maybe it was bad intelligence, but it needs to be very clear. The document in question makes a case that the Bush administration knew they didn't have enough information/evidence to start this war, but decided to carry on regardless.

    This document is being touted as the smoking gun on many websites. I prefer that the president did tell the truth even if I dont like him, but if he isn't the impeachment process is well deserved.
    I agree 100%
    Mike from Zoodia.com
    Professional web design and development services.
    In need of a fresh hosting design? See what premade designs we have in stock!
    Web design tips, tricks, and more at MichaelPruitt.com
      0 Not allowed!

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    FT Worth, TX
    Posts
    5,098
    I personally think its high time we leave both Afghanistan & Iraq.
    If we haven't found Osama Bin Laden in 4 years chances are we will never find him or if we get lucky and he screws up.

    I think hes actually hiding in another country away from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan etc. I mean would you hide in countries you knew people were looking for you?

    lets bring the troops home and start recovering from the massive debt our inept president has brought upon us.
    Kerry Jones
      0 Not allowed!

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,419
    CASE - wow - you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

    Im not going to reply to your attmept to escalate this by silly name calling and rediculous branding statements - but you certainly attempted escalated it a notch in your retort. let me know when you have a grip if you want to chat on the topic. till then I hope you have a better day.
    Dedicated Servers
    WWW.NETDEPOT.COM
    Since 2000
      0 Not allowed!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •