Author Topic: Worse than Watergate? (Read 1944 times)

Arfann · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2003, 02:15:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GrimCO
It's embarrassing is what it is.

Embarrassing? Just embarrassing? Getting caught with yer pants down in the oval office is embarrassing. Invading Iraq under totally manufactured pretenses is the vilest form of political BS. In this case I really and truly hate to say "I told you so", but

I TOLD YOU SO

Sandman · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2003, 04:18:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Even if we assume that he was intentionally lying (which he was not)...

Speaking of opinions...

Hortlund · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2003, 04:44:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Speaking of opinions...

Exactly...

Erlkonig · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2003, 05:09:50 PM »

Bush lies, and troops die.

Nope, nothing to worry about...move along now, nothing to see here...

Hortlund · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:16:10 PM »

THIS JUST IN: POLITICIANS SPIN THE TRUTH!

AKIron · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2003, 06:32:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Impeachment is a trial.

Bring it on. It's a far more important issue than Clinton's dick.

Not in the same ballpark as selling us out to China though.

Fishu · « **Reply #21 on:** July 13, 2003, 07:11:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by firbal
I think to compare this with Watergate is not in the same class. Watergate had the President running illegal operations against the Dem's to get information.
The war in Iraq is a whole differant thing. We all know that S.M. was up to no good. He had WMDs, at the very least in the past. And he has used them also. He also tried to kill Pres. Bush (41) after he left office when he was visiting the Middle East. And on & on. Now clearly he stated in his speach that through British intell that he was triing to buy stuff for his nuke program. So now what, do you believe your intell from a friend, who has a very good service or not? I think the problem I has with this whole problem is that our intell service is lacking in alot of ways. They have proven unreliable in the information they have given to our top leaders. So now we don't believe them when the next time they come up with something? Possibly. It's to that point now. But I think alot of our problem goes back to the '70s when they fired all our field agents. Our leadership back then didn't like the CIA. So they cut them down thought that high tech was the way to go. Now we'er paying that price now.

Don't forget that Saddam IN THE PAST bought WMD from USA and how USA turned down Irans complain to UN about Iraq using WMD in the war.

Simply believing that someone isn't good or doesnt have nice plans in his mind, isn't enough to go attack countries.
Otherwise we'd have World War III at our hands.

Obviously the case with intel here was that Bush decided to gamble and lost.

Sandman · « **Reply #22 on:** July 13, 2003, 07:49:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Not in the same ballpark as selling us out to China though.

An issue so heinous that he was impeac... uh... never mind.

mietla · « **Reply #23 on:** July 13, 2003, 07:55:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

Oh... and Clinton was acquitted.

So was OJ Simpsom. It's the Jury baby. Select enough morons who are not going to convict no matter what and you get away with anything.

Did you really think that this F* Senate is going to convict Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd?

LePaul · « **Reply #24 on:** July 13, 2003, 08:02:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

Oh... and Clinton was acquitted.

You do not understand the process.

Sandman · « **Reply #25 on:** July 13, 2003, 08:18:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
So was OJ Simpsom. It's the Jury baby. Select enough morons who are not going to convict no matter what and you get away with anything.

Did you really think that this F* Senate is going to convict Clinton? Ted Kennedy? Robert Byrd?

Big difference is that Simpson probably committed a crime worth worrying about.

Quote

Originally posted by LePaul
You do not understand the process.

Was he not acquitted according to the process?

mietla · « **Reply #26 on:** July 13, 2003, 11:23:34 PM »

Well yes and no, the Senate just wimped out. They've never wanted to get this case to begin with. They just arbitralily decided to end this thing and they did.

And since the law is what ever they say it is, you are right, they "followed the process", but still they let the crook off the hook.

Maniac · « **Reply #27 on:** July 14, 2003, 03:53:37 AM »

I think Blair is worse out than Bush....

Nash · « **Reply #28 on:** July 14, 2003, 04:05:39 AM »

That's a pretty interesting dynamic to this thing... the difference between what the fallout is in Britain as compared to the US.

Will Blair take a huge hit, while Bush gets a pass for the very same thing? Will the opposite happen? How much will the folks involved be taking their cues from what happens across the pond? Might be interesting...

Frogm4n · « **Reply #29 on:** July 14, 2003, 04:43:27 AM »

ive pretty much given up nash. I'll vote democrat once again next election and thats about all i can do. its what the majority of voters did in 2000 and hopefully the majority will fallow suit again. Your never going to convice the hardcore republicans that make up about 35 percent of their voters to think anything but happy thoughts about bush. Hell they still think reagan was a economical genius.