Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
You have to be kidding me? I have never met a Democrat who was willing to admit that what Clinton was wrong, without qualification. Its about sex, Starr was on a witchhunt, what is is.
Please!
Clinton lied under oath and the Dems said no consequences.
|
What Clinton did was wrong. Period.
It was about sex, Starr was out of control -- I saw this notwithstanding my deep personal admiration for the man, with which you are familiar -- and the GOP tried to use his mistake for political reasons.
It wasn't grounds for impeachment, but what he did was wrong. Period.
Clinton suffered consequences, and I find it odd that conservatives now seem to feel that there has to be a legal sanction because traditional social sanctions apparently count for nothing.
Quote:
|
Bush has never even lied, he just relied on intelligence, which may or may not have been flawed, as the WMDs may still turn up.
|
Tommy Franks told Bush that they had been looking for WMD for years without finding any. Bush told reporters two days later, categorically, that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it's not a lie only in the sense that Bush had some sort of religious-like conviction that Hussein was a bad man and that an invasion would turn up the evidence, but the fact remains that he misrepresented what he knew, and made statements about WMD for which he did not have a basis, and that he did this in order to try to convince this country to go to war. When Bush said that, he wasn't "relying" on intelligence -- he was bending and twisting what he was told, and using it to try to convince people to go along with what he already decided to do.
It's pathetic the way you guys want to pretend that Bush was somehow misled by the CIA. He's the leader, right? We all know that the CIA was his bitch, not the other way around.
