quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


I simply said that the DEMOCRATS are pushing a pro-war candidate, and for that I'm labeled a "Bush Apologist"!!!

It's the stereotyping. The Democrats sounds like The Bogeyman.

WHICH PEOPLE are standing for Hilary?

Not me. I still think Denis Kucinich is probably the only one in the pack worthy of any respect. That means he's a non-starter, but there you are.

Still, *blaming* her for believing Bush's lies? Don't you have to hold Bush accountable for those lies first? THEN go through the list holding other accountable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


I simply said that the DEMOCRATS are pushing a pro-war candidate, and for that I'm labeled a "Bush Apologist"!!!

It's the stereotyping. The Democrats sounds like The Bogeyman.

WHICH PEOPLE are standing for Hilary?

Not me. I still think Denis Kucinich is probably the only one in the pack worthy of any respect. That means he's a non-starter, but there you are.

Still, *blaming* her for believing Bush's lies? Don't you have to hold Bush accountable for those lies first? THEN go through the list holding other accountable?

Stereotyping? Oh, I get it - you mean, when you try to make someone sound like the Bogeyman by calling him a "Bush Apologist" or something. And don't look now, but pro-war Hillary is your front runner - PROBABLY your candidate.

Liberals are for pro-war Hillary, all the way.

And KUCINOVITCH??? He doesn't stand a chance. He looks, sounds and acts too much like some weird little troll that should be scaring litle children from under his bridge somewhere.

Sounds like you're all alone out there. Most Democrats aren't really against the war, since most of them are supporting pro-war Hillary, and I'm just pointing that little fact out because it's so damn funny.

Build up your lame little strawman and torch it again, who cares. Bill Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq, and his little woman Hillary has always stood by her man...

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Boy, you can't let them talking points go, can you? Despite the elections in 2006 saying "The American People reject the current policies and those who support them", you still believe otherwise.

Have fun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Boy, you can't let them talking points go, can you? Despite the elections in 2006 saying "The American People reject the current policies and those who support them", you still believe otherwise.

Have fun.

What is it now, 50 Dems, 49 Republicans and an Independant? Quite the man-date ya got yourself there fargle - almost one whole percent of the vote.

Bush did far better in 2004, but did you try to claim that the people had spoken then?

quote:

....doesn't absolve Bush from the fact he lied and started everything...by everything I mean the whole Iraq-democracy-fiasco the US has to deal with..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Actually, nobody voted FOR Democrats. Very few people ever would. They voted AGAINST President Bush, who has been the victim of the biggest smear campaign in all of human history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: starshineowned

Had Bush of out right lied on his own merit in order to Continue this war with Iraq from years ago..He'd of already been under Impeachment process. There is no evidence inwhich to preclude that this is the case. Therefore no Impeachment process. You may have your opinion that the President lied, however, I find it extremely lame and ill informed of anyone who at the very least thinks that just the President made this all powerful decision all by his lonesome. It doesn't work that way Sir, sorry. I find it even more lame that a person can out right say the President lied, when the rest of the Government can't seem to conjur up evidence in order to deal with such a accusation. I guess however, that a few persons on some forum on the wide world of Internet has all this proof to make such a claim. Imagine that.

Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Actually, nobody voted FOR Democrats. Very few people ever would. They voted AGAINST President Bush, who has been the victim of the biggest smear campaign in all of human history.

Ha ha ha! The man is an idiot who can't string two words together. I doubt he can string two thoughts together either. The most frightening thing in the world is to know the world's most powerful man is an idiot and a psychotic idiot at that. Dr Strangelove? Fact is stranger than fiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Ha ha ha! The man is an idiot who can't string two words together. I doubt he can string two thoughts together either. The most frightening thing in the world is to know the world's most powerful man is an idiot and a psychotic idiot at that. Dr Strangelove? Fact is stranger than fiction.

Can't string two words together???

Psychotic???

Pure smear - thanks for proving my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Can't string two words together???

Psychotic???

Pure smear - thanks for proving my point.

quote:


The Supreme Court has defined the phrase "conspiracy to defraud the United States" as "to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement "between two or more persons" to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn't have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy.

The concept of interfering with a lawful government function is best explained by reference to two well-known cases where courts found that executive branch officials had defrauded the United States by abusing their power for personal or political reasons.

One is the Watergate case, where a federal district court held that Nixon's Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, and his crew had interfered with the lawful government functions of the CIA and the FBI by causing the CIA to intervene in the FBI's investigation into the burglary of Democratic Party headquarters. The other is U.S. v. North, where the court found that Reagan administration National Security Adviser John Poindexter, Poindexter's aide Oliver North, and others had interfered with Congress's lawful power to oversee foreign affairs by lying about secret arms deals during Congressional hearings into the Iran/contra scandal.

Finally, "fraud" is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with "reckless indifference" to their truth.

Conspiracies to defraud usually begin with a goal that is not in and of itself illegal. In this instance the goal was to invade Iraq. It is possible that the Bush team thought this goal was laudable and likely to succeed. It's also possible that they never formally agreed to defraud the public in order to attain it. But when they chose to overcome anticipated or actual opposition to their plan by concealing information and lying, they began a conspiracy to defraud -- because, as juries are instructed, "no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements."

From the fall of 2001 to at least March 2003, the following officials, and others, made hundreds of false assertions in speeches, on television, at the United Nations, to foreign leaders and to Congress: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Under Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Their statements were remarkably consistent and consistently false.

Even worse, these falsehoods were made against an overarching deception: that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. If Administration officials never quite said there was a link, they conveyed the message brilliantly by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq together incessantly -- just as beer commercials depict guys drinking beer with gorgeous women to imply a link between beer drinking and attractive women that is equally nonexistent. Beer commercials might be innocuous, but a deceptive ad campaign from the Oval Office is not, especially one designed to sell a war in which 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, and that has cost this country more than $200 billion so far and stirred up worldwide enmity.

The fifteen-month PR blitz conducted by the White House was a massive fraud designed to trick the public into accepting a goal that Bush's advisers had held even before the election.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

So lets get this right.........

Bush is a room temperature IQ sociopath or whatever labels folks want to fit?

He persuaded a lot of americans to surrender habeaus corpus and other "rights" under certain circumstances
He persuaded a nation to go to war half a world away and got majority support from the populace
Thats just two

Rest of the world appears to dislike the US, well if the majority are so dumb as to follow such an "idiot" can you really blame them?


Or is Bush smarter than you give him credit for to hoodwink the nation? (damn thats gotta sting) Jeez least here we have the excuse that the incumbent has such a huge majority in the house that its easy for him to steamroller legisilation he likes through, wheras you folks, well seems that both parties have been voting for bush policies a lot of the time.


PS I can already predict at least one of the possible responses to this!

quote:

ORIGINAL: starshineowned

While I do agree this is a extreme uphill battle as far as getting Democracy to take a foot hold Sir...I do not think anyone was able to foresee the mass intrusion of insurgents from surrounding countrys which ultimately has led to alot of the delay, and deaths, as well as extreme confusion and uncertainty amongst the religious factions who are now endeavoring and grappling to try and climb to the top of the heap.

Again..the President may be ultimately seen as "in charge" however, this is only truely accurate in cases where they have power on limited issue's to override congress. Ultimately it is congress, and the feelings of the people at large who make or break something, and the president is nothing more than a figure head inwhich to point the blame or praise depending on any given outcome of such a situation.

I will not ofcourse say that Bush stated that Iraq will have Democracy within 3yrs..but I personally have not heard or read that statement as such. I do however recall quite clearly that Bush made no mistake or hidden agenda to the American people that this was going to be a very long hard road, and that we should understand this and be prepared for that.

Really at this point..the right or wrong, who got us there and why is backwash, and wasted time. Moving forward..if we suddenly pull out..there indeed will most likely be a bloodshed or "catastrophy" as Pelosi thinks is happening now but it will be a kind that will show her what a real catastrophy looks like.

It is a sad situation all the way around. If we stay..it is going to take years of us being there to truely see some positive movement as would be the case in Any country starting from a Dictatorship going to a Democracy. If we pull out..Iraq will most certainly go into utter chaos and anarchy. If they were left alone (as in surrounding countrys staying the hell out) eventually they would right themselves even if it was to return to a new Dictorial country. Perhaps that is what we must let happen. I don't have the answer for that. Did we do what we aimed to do? I think so. Saddam is not only gone..but tried, convicted, and dead. Have we tried to restore order, and help rebuild? Yes so I do not feel guilty that the efforts are seeming to be invain.

In the few years down the road what is it we are going to be looking at? Soldiers there now making some headway albeit very slow or 3yrs from now when Iran is nuke capable, and the entire world has to send troops to that region to stabilize? What do you honestly see as most likely to occur in 3-5yrs in that region Sir?

Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin