Fence_Sitter

what about it? it has nothing to do with the current topic... we are talking about the differences (or lack thereof) between the wartime transgression of bush and clinton... is that just your 'ace' when you cant win an argument? betchel?

where's the differne erik? you can now see my indifference for both 'lies' i know this lying goes on... clinton and bush's lies are one and the same... so why aren't you in agreement with me with bush...they did the same thing right? and obviously you dont see clinton's transgression as that bad, so what of bush's?

also, both the brittish adn U.S. goverments dramatically exaggerated teh death counts...which they estimated to be over 100,000 turne out to be barely 3,000 ...the list goes on and on...

a) we started looking for bin Laden 19 months ago, not 24 b) we invaded Iraq 8 weeks ago, not 2. c) in an earlier post, you mentioned 4000 popups. I counted 7 from 6 pages perhaps you wouldn't come off as such an idiot if you got your numbers right. you're about as credible as your hero boy, shrub. you expect them to find the weapons while they are fighting a war?!?!!? what do they just say "hey stop shooting at us!?!? we have to search your country for illegal weapons!"? i think not...and the U.S. has been looking for bin laden much much much longer than that... read up kiddo... I thought you were against Clinton's firing of cruise missles in his attempt to get rid of Saddam. Was that a transgression? Sounded like it. And remind me, since "I don't read" and I'm just an ignorant liberal, what were Clinton's transgressions in Kosovo? Just freakin' answer the question. Question -> Answer. just like you are saying that bush is doing, we went to war with yugoslavia not to save the lives of ethnic albanians, but rather to procure a strong relationship with russia who clinton was obsessed with allying with after the cold war period...another deceit of motives...

i will give you a hint about the kosovo lie... clinton entered for what reason? humanitarian aid? correct? to end the tyranny of a n oppresive ruler... the real reason has to do with russia...its not that hard to find out...also, why wouldn't he pick out rwanda which a the time was far more oppressive than in kosovo?

In a word, yes. Didn't they say he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Didn't they make a big deal about how our troops had to carry gas masks and special suits to protect themselves because he was likely to use these things against us even if it meant he would kill lots of civilians in the process? Weren't our soldiers almost certainly ordered to look for and secure any such weapons? Meanwhile, do you want to fill us in on the Kosovo lie? if you were saddam, would you hide the weapons on the likely attack paths of the coalition forces, or would you hide them in the desolate marshland or teh scortching dessert? the only really inhabited parts of iraq are in the middle and branch out from baghdad...the rest are unpopulated as the environment is not really that condusive to big city growth...that leaves the rest of the country...a large portion able to be utilized for weapons storage... these are places where the troops have not gone yet...they have merely gone between the cities (after the initial movement into the cities) tha tis why...

now this is just hilarious!!!! how so? cause yuo want to put me into a categorythat i wont fit into?

a) we started looking for bin Laden 19 months ago, not 24 b) we invaded Iraq 8 weeks ago, not 2. c) in an earlier post, you mentioned 4000 popups. I counted 7 from 6 pages perhaps you wouldn't come off as such an idiot if you got your numbers right. you're about as credible as your hero boy, shrub. you expect them to find the weapons while they are fighting a war?!?!!? what do they just say "hey stop shooting at us!?!? we have to search your country for illegal weapons!"? i think not...and the U.S. has been looking for bin laden much much much longer than that... read up kiddo...

see eagle... that is my point...as succinct as i can say it...

you fucking idiot...i never said bush didn't lie...i said i am reserving judgment until i can prove it one way or the other...learn to read

thank you

no WMD= lie...see...that requires some assumptions to be made...1) that bush knwe any 'proof' was false...and 2) that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that... no matter how this discussion is had, there will be some assumptions. i ASSUME that since bush and powell went to the UN claiming that there were a LOT of WMD they had some reasonable intelligence data to support that. i ASSUME that since the weapons inspectors told Bush they hadn't found anything and were reluctant to say that they expected to find anything, that Bush just disregarded them b/c he had firm data that supported that decision. For me it comes down to the fact that the day before the war started it was about WMD, the day after the war started it was about liberation. Perhaps he had bad information perhaps not...either way he was still lying in my opinion. He fed us on reason and then changed w/no explanation. He was playing us, no doubt about that. I really don't think this was about WMD or liberty. Bin laden is a single person. People are much more mobile and smaller than most labs that would produce WMD....so bite me! i will nto bite you...i dont know if you have a clue about the labs for WMD...but many of the chemical and biological labs were in tractor trailers...highly mobile if you ask me...

i never said he didn't lie mattP...if i did it was a mistake...i think it is entirely possible...my whole premise was how you fail to see the transgressions of clinton in kosovo (which are proven by history) but yet you see transgressions that cannot be proven yet... i admit that it is likely we will see some transgressions, but i am waiting patiently...

dood...i dont wanna know actually...

no WMD= lie...see...that requires some assumptions to be made...1) that bush knwe any 'proof' was false...and 2) that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that...

like i have said...i think that any proof of a lie is based on the opinions of jounalists... i have seen NO proof (i'm talking direct proof) that Bush lied...i admit it is likely, but i withold judgement...

a very well balanced article... i can see why you have the views that you do reading that rubbish... journalism eh?

bull shit matt...i compared the war of clinton to bush... screw off if you wanna misconstrue my words...

3 words... 1)pot 2)kettle 3)black

I thought you've been saying that he hasn't lied... this is the last time!!! i will not presume to know anything...from the begining my point has been to wait and see... if you have the reding comprehension of a 9 year old or you just aren't reading my posts.... quit commenting on them if you cant understand my baisic premise...bubye

i'll take it that you mispelled deliberately and dumb on purpose as well too so i believe ya

choking the chicken pumping the porpoise, buffin the bishop....

where are you at? the 5.0 dick sucking stage?

WTF!?!?! i have never seen this show till tonight...but WTF... PACEY!?!?!

anyone hitting the casacde crags slide show... if so and you wanna grab some beers beforehand, lemme know...