On the surface, I could agree with much of Bush's statements above. However experience has shown that : 1. He can't be trusted to tell the truth. 2. He may competely bungle the management of this policy.
"I did not have sexual relations with that girl." Who said that red? "I misled the country with my statements." Or how about that one?
Did you think that was Clinton making the address Monday night? :lol: No wonder these issues confuse you! :wink: Let me see if I can follow your logic, Salty. Bill Clinton lied, so George Bush can now gets a free pass to lie? Or is . . . Bill Clinton lied, proving that George Bush is incapable of lying. Is that your only Clinton lie? I have a long list of Bush lies, here are my favorites: "The intelligence leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” [2003 Address to the Nation] "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” [State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003] "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." [State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003] "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03] "And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops." President Bush (11/04/04) "Brownie, you're doing a great job" (8/31/05) "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." President Bush (09/01/05)
No red, my point is that Bush has never lied, then came back and said he lied. Bush's statements above are not lies. You can say that the intelligence was flawed, whatever, but I don't see any bald face lies. My second point was that clinton is a scumbag, whose mind was somewhere else besides the well being of our country. I feel that Bush cares about nothing but our future. I may not agree with all of his ideals, but there is no doubt were his heart is. My third point was that Bush is a leader. Clinton is something completely different.
Well . . . Bush was hoodwinking us, or his people were hoodwinking him. Either way we deserve better. Every statement I listed was not TRUE. For the sake of argument lets say you are right and they were not intentional lies and deliberate attempts to mislead the public. Then the only way to explain them is one or more of the following: 1. Bush was misled by faulty advise from the advisors he selected. 2. Bush was foolishly naive and heard only what he wanted to hear. 3. Bush was not competent to appraise the situation and erred. 4. Bush imprudently jumped the gun and stated unsubstantiated "facts". 5. Bush was't bright enough to remember what he had been briefed on. Clinton was indeed a scumbag as a husband, but the public believes that he was a better president in spite of it. Certainly the country was in much, much better shape. I understand. But even if he means well and is honestly doing what he thinks is right . . . if it is actually dead wrong, or against the wishes of The People, or he is simply bungling the job then we must do our job as citizens and make our objections known. We have very different ideas of what constitutes a leader, amigo. I believe that you see a leader as someone who makes commands, follows his heart and mind, and sticks by his guns, not matter where it leads. I believe a leader does what is best for the country and is supported by his people, even if it means modifying his personal philosophy due to grim reality, recognizing errors, and fixing them. Above all a leader leads, he doesn't simply command. Leaders don't do things alone and they don't do it in secrecy from their people. Not in this country. The President of the United States of America was once the acknowledged leader of the free world with a long list of allies and a longer list of countries friendly and respectful to us. Bush has done more to damage our position as world leader than all his predecessors combined. Bush campaigned that he was a "united, not a divider", yet people regard his as the most divisive recent president. The country has never been more polarized because this President caters to desires of the small segment of the far-right, super-rich neo-cons he represents, not to the good of the broad spectrum of American society. His job is to represent all of us, not just the half that voted for him. Unfortunately no candidate in the last two elections has been made of Presidential timber. It has to change in 2008 or we are in big trouble. We deserve a better leader. Smarter, more honest, far more prudent, and broader of vision.
or: 6: the best information available could lead a reasonable person to make a mistake. even if you disagree with number 6, you cant say your list is the "only" possible choices. furthermor, wmd was only a small part of the reason to go to war, a fact overlooked by liberals building straw men. i would have favored war even if we knew for sure there were never wmds. that is true, but i dont understand why you continue to care what the public thinks. an argument can be made that the terrorism and security problems we have now were inevitable because of our flawed policy in the past. even so, our economy is doing fine. i am squarely on salty's side on this one. a weak leader leads by checking the polls. whether the people support the president is beside the point. the public should elect a man they trust and that man should lead. the public is not equipped to make the decisions the president makes. the president know much more about what is happening than we do and is has access to experts and information we never see. a leader who governs by the polls is not leading, he is literally following. you cannot control what the people think. many of them will favor policies that would ruin them and they do not realize it. policy is either wrong or right, it doesnt matter what the polls say. if bush, for example, took steps to broaden the separation between church and state, he would probabaly lose more followers than he would gain. but it is till the right thing to do. bush, and all politicians should completely ignore the polls. we elected them to lead, not to be led by our fickleness and our stupid short term whims.
maybe they had them at the time he said that. did you go check? how do you know what the intelligence officials were estimating? did they brief you? were you at the meeting where the british didnt say that? how do you know they didnt say that? what time period is bush talking about? if they didnt have labs, where did they the gas they used on the kurds? did you talk to bush's commanders? yunno retired generals do not count. i expect fema to fail. they shouldnt even exist. if you died in new orleans, good riddance. buy insurance or a car and drive away, or dont live in new orleans. i knew the levees would fail. i would never live in new orleans without taking some serious precautions. and i would blame myself when the inevitable happened, not the government. growing up in louisiana, i know damn well that new orleans was on borrowed time. thats why i dont live there. the last statement is the only one i really buy as a mistake by bush, if he made it, and meant it in the context you are portraying it.
