Poll: If Election were today, would you vote Bush? (merged)

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think Dubya would find a war zone a friendlier place than FYM for someone like him.

He should know, he's created two war zones in under 3 years.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Please, Fizzing, I hope you're not a Clinton fan, if you don't like "war zones". At least Bush didn't send our soldiers into a dangerous land and give them orders not to shoot back!

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

I think Bush would find California a friendlier place than FYM.

depends where in California. The town I live in is conservative, they would all shit a brick if Bush were to visit. Berkely or perhaps San Diego would be a different story.

 

[80sU2isBest]

In my view, President Bush does dishonor to the office of the president.

My gosh, that's exactly what I was saying a few years back about another president, one who cheated on his wife in the Oval Offce, of all places, and then lied to a federal grand jury about it...

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm not a Clinton fan. Although I might add that I'm concerned about the people who live in the war zones created by Presidents Bush and Clinton as well as the soldiers sent into them. I certainly wouldn't oppose Clinton's military action more than Bush's because of his orders to US soldiers.

 

[STING2]

FizzingWhizzbees,


"I'm not a Clinton fan. Although I might add that I'm concerned about the people who live in the war zones created by Presidents Bush and Clinton as well as the soldiers sent into them. I certainly wouldn't oppose Clinton's military action more than Bush's because of his orders to US soldiers."

Bush created two "war zones" in two years you say. How many people do you think will die in Iraq over the next year under Bush's "War Zone" compared to the numbers that died in any given year under Saddam Hussien?

How many people do you think have died and been tortured in Afghanistan this year, as compared to the year 2000 when the Taliban were in control?

Most people in those countries prefer Bush's "War Zone" to the Taliban and Saddam, even if you do not.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I'm not even going to respond as I don't want to take yet another thread completely off-track.

 

[Klaus]

STING2:

we all agree that George W. Bush (and any other former President of the US) were or are less evil than Sadam Hussein


80sU2isBest:
It's not me who's funny it's the economical vision of the US President which is funny, i just put it in shorter words.

Klaus

 

[Diogenes]

HELL no.

 

[melon]

My gosh, that's exactly what I was saying a few years back about another president, one who cheated on his wife in the Oval Offce, of all places, and then lied to a federal grand jury about it...

The difference is between lying about one's personal life and lying about one's professional life. I would not want to remove a successful CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, because he lied about a consentual affair with a subordinate.

Now I would want to remove that CEO if he had lied about crucial details about his work, which is what Bush might be guilty of. If we want to start treating America like a business, then maybe it's about time we were serious about it. Throwing your company into fiscal irresponsibility and potentially lying about the reasons for your "acquisitions" (Iraq) are reasons why I would push to remove a CEO anyday...

...and precisely why I make a large distinction between Clinton and Bush.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Melon, Bush didn't lie to a federal grand jury. Bill Clinton lied to a federal grand jury. That is a federal offense.

 

[melon]

Melon, Bush didn't lie to a federal grand jury. Bill Clinton lied to a federal grand jury. That is a federal offense.

Well, we'll never get to a federal grand jury on Bush, because he'll have declared all the potential evidence sealed for "national security."

Do you somehow believe that Bush has some moral high ground here? Sad to say, for you, perhaps, but I don't see it.

Melon

 

[sulawesigirl4]

if it turns out that Bush lied about Iraq, he will have a lot of innocent blood on his hands. Just the fact that he used false information that was proven to be fake BEFORE he made his State of the Union address is pretty damn shaky if you ask me. Hardly the moral high ground.

 

[80sU2isBest]

that's a bunch of "if"s right now. There is no proof that he lied; at this point they are accusations. Clinton on ther hand, is known to have lied.

 

[melon]

that's a bunch of "if"s right now. There is no proof that he lied; at this point they are accusations. Clinton on ther hand, is known to have lied.

About sex.

*watches as nothing changes

Either way, we'll probably never get to solve those "ifs," considering how the Bush Administration buries everything under a pile of "national security" and "executive privilege" excuses. Although, with the latter, courts are hinting that Cheney's energy policy documents may be forced to be released. We may finally find out whether Enron caused California's energy crisis or not...

...of course, I'm sure all the pertinent documents have been burned by now.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

I have to agree with 80's. When the President lies under oath, no matter what he is lying about, he has shamed the office and does not deserve to be there.

This war stuff is politics, as of now, and time will tell if something more serious is/was going on there.

 

[melon]

I have to agree with 80's. When the President lies under oath, no matter what he is lying about, he has shamed the office and does not deserve to be there.

Republicans were always better liars. I trust none of our presidents, irrespective of party affiliation.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Republicans were always better liars. I trust none of our presidents, irrespective of party affiliation.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The difference is between lying about one's personal life and lying about one's professional life. I would not want to remove a successful CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation, because he lied about a consentual affair with a subordinate.

.

People shouldn't have even been butting into that aspect of Clinton's life in the first place. That's all I'll say about that.

Originally posted by melon
Now I would want to remove that CEO if he had lied about crucial details about his work, which is what Bush might be guilty of. If we want to start treating America like a business, then maybe it's about time we were serious about it. Throwing your company into fiscal irresponsibility and potentially lying about the reasons for your "acquisitions" (Iraq) are reasons why I would push to remove a CEO anyday...

...and precisely why I make a large distinction between Clinton and Bush.

Melon

Exactly.

Besides, I like Clinton, but that doesn't mean that I agreed with every single thing he did while in office. I don't care what party affiliation our president is with, if they start a war while in office I will not support it.

Originally posted by melon
Well, we'll never get to a federal grand jury on Bush, because he'll have declared all the potential evidence sealed for "national security."

Exactly.

Angela

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

yeah i bet every president has done a lot of shady things, Clinton just happend to get caught.

 

[sue4u2]

And, Nixon got caught too, oh excuse me we're talking about security issues here, not gratification ... So to lie about breaking & entering is the same as.... never mind. I can't even go into it anymore.

 

[pub crawler]

Edit: I argued the points about Clinton and then realized that is not my point in engaging in the discussion in this thread.

 

[Klaus]

if it turns out that Bush lied about Iraq, he will have a lot of innocent blood on his hands. Just the fact that he used false information that was proven to be fake BEFORE he made his State of the Union address is pretty damn shaky if you ask me. Hardly the moral high ground.

If it is true that he knew that he lied about Iraq his lies killed US citicens (The Soldiers who fought to defend the US). If his lies killed US citizens he shouldn't even think about becoming President again.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Ok, if you have yet to vote in this poll, please vote!

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Didn't vote for him the first time, not planning to again.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

If it is true that he knew that he lied about Iraq his lies killed US citicens (The Soldiers who fought to defend the US). If his lies killed US citizens he shouldn't even think about becoming President again.

Klaus

I wholeheartedly agree, Klaus.

 

[swizzlestick]

If it is true that he knew that he lied about Iraq his lies killed US citicens (The Soldiers who fought to defend the US). If his lies killed US citizens he shouldn't even think about becoming President again.

Klaus

I'm confused, can someone tell me again how Bush lied about Iraq?

 

[bonocrazy88]

Hell Yes!!

YES!

 

[melon]

Re: Hell Yes!!

YES!

Mind elaborating on why?

Melon

 

[Klaus]

swizzlestick:

Some CIA members told the press that the US government knew exactly that some of the "facts" which made Iraq to a imminent danger which were presented were wrong. Espeially The Uranium Fiction (see NY times OP/ED http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12SAT1.html?th )
Especially

We're glad that someone in Washington has finally taken responsibility for letting President Bush make a false accusation about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program in the State of the Union address last January, but the matter will not end there....


...It is clear, however, that much more went into this affair than the failure of the C.I.A. to pounce on the offending 16 words in Mr. Bush's speech. A good deal of information already points to a willful effort by the war camp in the administration to pump up an accusation that seemed shaky from the outset and that was pretty well discredited long before Mr. Bush stepped into the well of the House of Representatives last January. Doubts about the accusation were raised in March 2002 by Joseph Wilson 4th, a former American diplomat, after he was dispatched to Niger by the C.I.A. to look into the issue.

Mr. Wilson has said he is confident that his concerns were circulated not only within the agency but also at the State Department and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Tenet, in his statement yesterday, confirmed that the Wilson findings had been given wide distribution...

And:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/international/worldspecial/12INTE.html?th

The director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, accepted responsibility yesterday for letting President Bush use information that turned out to be unsubstantiated in his State of the Union address, accusing Iraq of trying to acquire uranium from Africa to make nuclear weapons....

...For days, the White House has tried to quiet a political storm over the discredited intelligence, which was among many examples cited in Mr. Bush's speech to justify the need for confronting Iraq to force the dismantlement of Saddam Hussein's arms programs.

At least the CIA director showed some responsibility:
"Although Mr. Tenet's statement did not say he had personally cleared the speech, he said in his statement, "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency.""

Seems like the President isn't responsible for his speeches

from the same Article

Greg Thielmann, a proliferation expert who worked for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, added this week: "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude: `We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers.' When you sense this kind of attitude, you quash the spirit of intellectual inquiry and integrity."

Klaus