• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

The George W. Bush Thread

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
He is then put on trial in the Senate, where 2/3 of the members must find him guilty for him to be removed from power. The Republicans did not have 2/3 of the Senate in their hands (they were pretty close, but not quite there) and they knew they couldn't get Clinton removed -- it was done solely to damage his credibilty, which it largely didn't.
This is not accurate. The Representatives that presented the case to the Senate did so in a near certainty of the outcome, and they did it out of a sense of duty to their office. Credible evidence was presented, so an impeachment was handed down. It was their duty to prosecute the case to the Senate, which they did.

The MOVEMENT to impeach Clinton may have been done in part to damage his credibility, but even that is not the whole issue. There was this MOUNTAIN of evidence indicating that he was using his office to cover unsavory and sometimes illegal personal conduct. That is corruption by any definition. The evidence of corruption is what moved the process, rather than any hope of removing him from office, though obviously that was the dream of many.

J
 
Originally posted by wildWolverine

I think that much of the anger and hatred towards Bush stems from the outcome of the election in 2000.
...
Many Bush opponents cite his apparent "disregard for the Constitution" in one breath while shouting in the next that we should have changed our election laws in the middle of an election just so the candidate that they supported (Gore) could win. I think the electoral college is a good thing. If you don't, and we change it, fine. I can live with that. But if we change in the midst of an election, our Constitution becomes a joke and we become no better than the "democracies" in Africa.

Absolutely false. The issue was not that the election laws should be changed and the electoral college be disbanded in mid election. The issue was that the black vote in Florida was discounted through underhanded use of the law deciding that felons should not be able to vote. In this case many who had not ever been in contact with the law or had only commited misdemeanors were included in the data collected by this woman, I forget her name, who was later to join the republicans. And the fact that numerous votes by military voters (republicans mostly) overseas were wrongfully included despite numerous irregularities such as overdue postage. These manipulations swung the vote in favour of Bush by an incredibly small margin.

Therefore to accuse people complaining over the Bush victory on grounds that they are seeking to transform America into an 'African democracy' ("nice" one BTW) should not be taken too seriously.
 
Originally posted by onejayhawk

The MOVEMENT to impeach Clinton may have been done in part to damage his credibility, but even that is not the whole issue. There was this MOUNTAIN of evidence indicating that he was using his office to cover unsavory and sometimes illegal personal conduct. That is corruption by any definition. The evidence of corruption is what moved the process, rather than any hope of removing him from office, though obviously that was the dream of many.

If there was a mountain of evidence the size of Rush Limbaugh, why was this not used against Clinton?

Let me see they put a man on trial and ask him if he had sex with this woman. So the trial was about Clinton having sex with a woman. Yet it is not illegal to have sex. Despite the fact that such information is of no interest to a well functioning judicial system Clinton is then forced to answer aspects of his private life that is of absolutely no consequence. Excuse me but I simply can' get it into my head what legal right Starr had to ask such a question. There is something totally illogical about this thing that gets to me and annoys me to death.
 
I read that the Kyoto Treaty was first signed in 1997. What happened to clinton? Did he just not feel like getting around to ratifying it? or did he not sign it himself?
 
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Let me see they put a man on trial and ask him if he had sex with this woman. So the trial was about Clinton having sex with a woman. Yet it is not illegal to have sex. Despite the fact that such information is of no interest to a well functioning judicial system Clinton is then forced to answer aspects of his private life that is of absolutely no consequence. Excuse me but I simply can' get it into my head what legal right Starr had to ask such a question. There is something totally illogical about this thing that gets to me and annoys me to death.

I belive the thing is that he first said NO, and then admitted to have had sex, that ment he had lied and they impeaced him over that(the fact that he had lied)?

I'm I right?

Now why it was a crime for him to lie when he said no I don't know, was he infront of some senat commite?
 
Originally posted by Tassadar
Before the election i had already a bad feeling about him, without reason.

when he start to say from day 1, this is a new administration so all previous agrement....blablabla, NEW ADMINISTRATION, come on, USA is not a little restaurent aside the road.

Later , it was several international treaty , either broken and or completly ignore.

His general unilateralism and radicalism.

The hyprocrisis; god is on my side vs killing poeple in Iraq.

He s not able to speak corectly, which mean IMO brain damage.

There is also major contradiction between what he said and what he do ( intern policy).

He is arogant, insuffisant and stuborn.
im tottally agree with this tassadar.
But why does it come that a country like the usa gets a president based on how much money you raised for campaign and 25% of all poeple?
 
Regardless of whether he had sex or not, regardless of whether he smoked pot or not, Clinton lied.

He lied to the American people about numerous things he didn't have to lie about....which makes me think he had just made a habit of it all his life.

Oh, by the way, I'm not a Bush supporter, a Clinton hater, or even a member of a political party. I do, however, make my own judgements, and Clinton fell well short of my standards. Bush isn't exactly my hero either, but so far, many of his policies coincide with my own beliefs.
 
Eyrei. Bush has lied during the State of the Union speech in 2003. How is that lie less important than a blowjob lie ? How giving a fake reason to invade a foreign country less important than a blowjob lie ?

Don't say Bush were expecting to find WMD in Iraq. If Bush were expecting so, then he was the only one in the Administration to believe in such a crap. Bush knew they were no WMD in Iraq. He would have never declared war that easily if they were risks for US soldiers to get killed in mass.

That's what I don't get with americans. We always forgive Bush's lies as if it wasn't that serious. If he really didn't lie and just made a mistake, then it's even worst ! That means either American Intelligence or Bush Administration has serious problems ! The official reason to invade Iraq had always been to avoid him to use the WMD he was hiding. All the rest is about moral crap to get the support of the public opinion.

After the September, 11th, we've questionned the capacity of the American Intelligence since it wasn't able to prevent such attacks. Now that we invaded a country for a reason that has been proven as either fake or flawed, why there's no introspection about it in the US ? What's the matter with you ? Are you that subjugate by Bush to not see the obvious ?

Remember how it happened !!! First, Bush invents a crappy concept of "preemptive war". Then, he explains to the UN that Iraq is a threat to the USA because of its WMD so the UN Security Council should give its agreement to a preemptive attack. Then, France, Russia and Germany says no, Iraq doesn't cause any immediate threat to the US. Then Americans invade Iraq and find no WMD. Then Americans say, WMD weren't that important anyway.

Once again, I repeat, what's the matter with you ??? Where's the logic ? And the worst is that Bush will be re-elected because Americans want France to be punished !!! Punished for what ? Because France was right and that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat to the US Security ? What a crap !
 
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor

The issue was that the black vote in Florida was discounted through underhanded use of the law deciding that felons should not be able to vote. In this case many who had not ever been in contact with the law or had only commited misdemeanors were included in the data collected by this woman, I forget her name, who was later to join the republicans. And the fact that numerous votes by military voters (republicans mostly) overseas were wrongfully included despite numerous irregularities such as overdue postage. These manipulations swung the vote in favour of Bush by an incredibly small margin.

Felons have never been able to vote. That is the law. Again, you cannot change that mid-election. I would like to see proof that "many who had not ever been in contact with the law... were included in the data..." On another point, the famed "butterfly ballots" were used in Ohio too, and the Ohioans did not seem to have any problems. Besides -- you've made my argument for me: "... Bush by an incredibly small margin." The recounts in Florida, which I believe were a farce, still said that Bush won. How many recounts should have been done? Enough until somehow Gore magically acquired enough votes to win the state? The election was not rigged, nor were "underhanded" techniques used in Florida, unless you want to talk about "dimpled" or "hanging" chads.

Perhaps you should review some of the voting that took place in Wisconsin. Gore volunteers went around offering packs of cigarettes to homeless people if they would go vote (which is illegal, in case you didn't know). While it didn't make a large difference in the state, there still exists more evidence that more "underhanded" techniques were used by democrat supporters (note I do not say democrats) than by republican supporters.

I find it interesting that Al Gore was fully prepared to issue his concession speech and phone call to Bush in the early morning after the election, but his daughter, not his political advisors or anyone who had an iota of knowledge about political elections, had a screaming fit, telling him he couldn't give up. The entire ensuing affair was the result of a spoiled 18(19?) year old brat's tantrum.

The Supreme Court, which has a relatively liberal stance (see the recent Affirmative Action vote), confirmed Bush's victory. That should be enough to quiet the naysayers. However, this goes back to an interesting point someone made above. Perhaps people at this point in time just have an inherent distrust with the government in general... or perhaps they distrust anyone who disagrees with them.

But again, I feel like Doktor is at least partially confirming my hypothesis. <prepare for bad pun ahead> I contend that much of the extreme contention (hee!) over the election led to the overall hatred directed towards Bush, who is viewed, correctly or incorrectly, as a sneaky thief who "stole the election" from Gore. Many people, even those originally sitting on the fence, felt that Bush should have been conciliatory and compromising for his first few months in office, given the narrow margin of his victory. This may have been good politics, and may have avoided the current polarization -- who knows. However, he did not, and that leaves us where we are today.....
 
Eyrei. Bush has lied during the State of the Union speech in 2003. How is that lie less important than a blowjob lie ? How giving a fake reason to invade a foreign country less important than a blowjob lie ?

I don't have time to type a full reply, and I'm sure most of you don't want to read another lengthy tract. However, this will be quick -- I promise!

The are two distinct differences. The first is that Bush may not have realized he was not telling the entire truth -- which, I admit, is an example of negligince, which is equally inexcusable (however, when do you come to the point where you have to trust that the people that give you info are telling the truth?). The second, much more important, difference is that Clinton was under oath when he lied. Lying while under oath is called perjury, and is a prosecutable offense.

edit: sorry Marla -- I just reread your post -- how would having Bush in office "punish" France? Besides that, the attention span of Americans is amazingly short: most people have absolutely no feelings at all toward France......
 
Whenever I hear people solemnly intone "But Clinton lied!" and look shocked and hurt, I dont know whether to laugh or cry. How can anyone believe that there is such a thing as a politician that doesnt lie. When I say that, they reply wide eyed "Yes, but Clinton lied in court under oath!":lol: Under oath, over oath, between the oath and alonside the oath---guess what? POLITICIANS LIE! Wake up and smell the coffee!
 
Yup, they lie. And the measure of political skills is measured in the ability to lie through your teeth while you know you're covered should someone blow the whistle on you in your own administration.
 
Originally posted by wildWolverine
I don't have time to type a full reply, and I'm sure most of you don't want to read another lengthy tract. However, this will be quick -- I promise!

The are two distinct differences. The first is that Bush may not have realized he was not telling the entire truth -- which, I admit, is an example of negligince, which is equally inexcusable (however, when do you come to the point where you have to trust that the people that give you info are telling the truth?). The second, much more important, difference is that Clinton was under oath when he lied. Lying while under oath is called perjury, and is a prosecutable offense.
What about lying during the State of the Union speech ? That's excusable ? Since when ?

Do you realize how you're excusing Bush ? And for which reason do you excuse him ? Because you've been brainwashed by people saying from 6am to midnight that "war was good" "war was good" "war was good". Your brain isn't able anymore to understand reasons given to go to war was flawed. Since "war was good", everything is excusable.

Now, listen to me. To get democracy in the Arab world, we can't import it as if it was some kind of franchise. If you want really to see democracies in the Arab world, you should move slowly but surely. Maybe thinking so piss you off, but that's the only way. If most of Arab countries are pro-american today, it's mainly because they are lead by dictators. Because of that Near East crap, arab opinions are highly antiamerican. You may not accept it but it's a fact. Then rushing one of these countries to Democracy will undoubtedly makes of it a country lead by an antiamerican government. There will be no Democracy in Iraq, we'll just remove a dictator to put another instead.

According to most of the experts, three countries are on the brink of fundamentalists revolution : Egypt (75 million people), Saudi Arabia (1st Oil reserve), Pakistan (nuclear power). In these three countries, dictators in place are moderating the public opinion. In Pakistan, fundamentalists are so strong that the militarymen leading the country had to manage them and accept some of them in their rank.

I cannot believe that wasn't known by Bush Administration. If it's really the case, then they are truely incompetent. Americans had been tricked by today's administration. Americans gave their full support to it for legitimate reasons (i.e. 9/11) and as a result, it took advantage of that support to lead the country into a very dangerous policy that simply cannot have any good effects for the US ! You must realize that !
 
Unfortunately, you are correct: lying seems to be an integral part of the profession of a politician. However, lying under oath is something different. The beauty about America is that a coal shoveler in a steel plant and the President of the country are both bound by the same laws. Either can lie all they want, as long as they are not under oath.
 
First off, I live in the most liberal city in America, Ann Arbor, so I doubt that I have people whispering prowar messages in my ear at night. Secondly, perhaps you missed the word "inexcusable" in my earlier post. Thirdly, I do not need to realize anything. How has anything that has been done in the past years been dangerous to the US? If you ask the average citizens in Afghanistan or Iraq how they feel about the before and after, I think you would get some interesting results. At best, somehow Afghanistan will slowly become a functioning nation, as will Iraq. At worst, both will descend back in to dictatorships who use fear and a forced hatred of America to take and hold power -- which is exactly what those two countries were like 5 years ago. In other words, at worst, the situation will be unchanged from 5 or 10 years ago.
 
Originally posted by wildWolverine
First off, I live in the most liberal city in America, Ann Arbor, so I doubt that I have people whispering prowar messages in my ear at night. Secondly, perhaps you missed the word "inexcusable" in my earlier post. Thirdly, I do not need to realize anything. How has anything that has been done in the past years been dangerous to the US? If you ask the average citizens in Afghanistan or Iraq how they feel about the before and after, I think you would get some interesting results. At best, somehow Afghanistan will slowly become a functioning nation, as will Iraq. At worst, both will descend back in to dictatorships who use fear and a forced hatred of America to take and hold power -- which is exactly what those two countries were like 5 years ago. In other words, at worst, the situation will be unchanged from 5 or 10 years ago.
No you're totally wrong. At worst, Iraq blow out in 3 parts. Kurdistan becomes independant and claims the Kurd part of Turkey and Iran. Chiites in the South becomes an Islamic Republic and sunni arabs in the center are in a civil war (the majority of people living in Baghdad are actually chiites !). Such an explosion would lead the whole region and then the world in a mess we couldn't compare with what we used to have. In 1918, we were sure WW1 was the most awful that could happen, and then we had WW2. My point here is that there's no bottom and I think that's what you simply don't get.
 
Once again, I repeat, what's the matter with you ??? Where's the logic ? And the worst is that Bush will be re-elected because Americans want France to be punished !!! Punished for what ? Because France was right and that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat to the US Security ? What a crap !

Where the heck do you get such bull Marla?
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
No you're totally wrong. At worst, Iraq blow out in 3 parts. Kurdistan becomes independant and claim the Kurd part of Turkey and Iran. Chiites in the South becomes an Islamic Republic and sunni arabs in the center are in a civil war (the majority of people living in Baghdad are actually chiites !). Such an explosion would lead the whole region and then the world in a mess we couldn't compare with what we used to have. In 1918, we were sure WW1 was the most awful that could happen, and then we had WW2. There's no bottom. that's what you don't get.
If theres war if we try and force them to stay together, and theres war if we let them become three seperate nations...whats the solution?
 
The french foreign minister is probably the only guy who managed to step deeper into a pile of dirt than Blair and Bush. His "We will veto whatever resolution put forth!" stands as the singular most stupid political move of 2003.
 
Top Bottom