An example of liberal immaturity.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Originally posted by melon:
Melon, Melon, Melon - whether they all lie or not, the point is that they don't all lie to a federal grand jury!

Ah yes. The key, to loosely quote Reagan, is not to lie, but to misinform.

1) Reagan, when questioned in the Iran-Contra scandal, said he had nothing to do with any of it. Recently declassified documents wholly implicates him in it all, from the convenient release of hostages on his inauguration (treason) to the covert arms sales, but we don't try dying people with Alzheimer's.

2) Bush I said that the Gulf War was not about oil interests, but to protect Saudi Arabia on request from their nation (our original intent at least). Quite the contrary, though, as declassified documents show that it was all on request from the oil companies, who saw it as a threat to their reserves.

But you are right. They don't all lie to a federal grand jury...or at least they didn't get caught lying in the case of Reagan.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)
 
Originally posted by DrTeeth:
Is telling a lie to a jury worse than telling lies to the people who elected you?
By the law's definition, which is how impeachment was judged, yes.
 
Originally posted by melon:

2) Bush I said that the Gulf War was not about oil interests, but to protect Saudi Arabia on request from their nation (our original intent at least). Quite the contrary, though, as declassified documents show that it was all on request from the oil companies, who saw it as a threat to their reserves.



Oddly enough, I seem to recall back in 1998 when Clinton was on the hot seat over the "sex-scandal", He suddenly decided to enforce the policy on Iraq and bombed a few targets. His timing was "odd" because he all but abandoned the use of force since 1993. One notable exception, of course would be the massive buildup of troops on the Kuwaiti border in late 1995 that sent myself and thousands of other troops over there for a 90 day "vacation".

In truth, the Saudi Arabian' army is weak and ineffective. Without our help, they would have been in serious trouble. We DID go over there to protect Saudi and we DID go over there to liberate Kuwait. And yes, OIL intrests were key. Another fact to consider, it is not wise to allow people to conquer and take over other nations. Sooner or later you will have to deal with them. It is better to stop them sooner, before they get out of control. Yes, this occurs in other places besides Iraq and Kuwait, and we do get involved at times. We don't have the resources to step in and resolve every conflict. And why should we? Why should the U.S. be the world police? Yes, I agree that we should assist when we can, and there was a valid need for help outside of the $oil$. But when and where do we draw the line?

Perhaps, instead of judging our leaders harshly on the basis of party lines, we should try and put ourselves in their place. We should try to understand why they make the decisions they do and how difficult it must be to deal with what they do on a daily basis. I probably would have had an intern too, just would have been more careful though...
 
Back
Top Bottom