Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I thought the topic was showing how Rove's statement wasn't altogether untrue.

Where is the outrage over the comments of the head of the DNC, Howard Dean?

Is he going to get on television, apologize to the 44.8 million registered Republicans of this country for his odious statement "Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives..." and resign?

Why is it odious to say that a lot of Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Spanky
If he did lie, it was not under oath so it was not illegal. It is amazing that a group of lawyers can't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath. President lie all the time. Every president lies. But lying to a judge under oath. That is a whole different ball game.

2. And I can relate. I lie all the time too, just not before Federal judges or otherwise under oath. It's shocking that lawyers defend this behaviour, especially otherwise good citizens like Ty and Sidd and Wonk. Was Clinton sharing his women with these guys? Sloppy seconds?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
2. And I can relate. I lie all the time too, just not before Federal judges or otherwise under oath. It's shocking that lawyers defend this behaviour, especially otherwise good citizens like Ty and Sidd and Wonk. Was Clinton sharing his women with these guys? Sloppy seconds?

Who is defending Clinton's lying here? We just think lying about a blow job is less significant than lying to get the country to go to war.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
If he did lie, it was not under oath so it was not illegal. It is amazing that a group of lawyers can't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath. President lie all the time. Every president lies. But lying to a judge under oath. That is a whole different ball game.

The issue, Spanky, as framed by Steve, was character. Not perjury. If you only measure character by whether or not a statement was perjury, that says much about character.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm no big fan of Bill,

?!?!. You can't be serious. What Democrat would have been better? I would have preferred a Republican but as a Democrat he was a hell of lot better than Jimmy. He didn't drastically cut the military, he signed welfare reform, he saved Kosovo, he pushed through NAFTA and the WTO. Without the DLC, which Clinton headed, the Democrats would be more of a nightmare than it already is.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
If he did lie, it was not under oath so it was not illegal. It is amazing that a group of lawyers can't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath. President lie all the time. Every president lies. But lying to a judge under oath. That is a whole different ball game.

I think we get the difference.

The question isn't the relative legality. The question is, Is lying under oath about a personal sexual matter between two consenting adults a greater wrong, a more serious matter, rising to the level of an impeachable offense, than lying about the presence of WMDs in Iraq to ensure public support needed to pursue a war?

Republicans say yes. Democrats say no.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who is defending Clinton's lying here? We just think lying about a blow job is less significant than lying to get the country to go to war.

The blow job and "lying about sex" is a red herring. It is the difference between lying and lying under oath.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think he could have invaded Afghanistan without some Republican support, much as Bush got support and authorization from Congress before he invaded. You guys bitched and bitched about the launching of a few cruise missiles .

What was he afraid of, he might take a foreign policy action as a leader, a Commander in Chief, for our national to defense, and the Republicans would get so upset they would impeach him?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Read his book. The problem is Islamic fundamentalism. And I didn't say he was fucking great, but he was the nation's top counterterrorism official under both Clinton and Bush, so if Bush had been interested in doing something to protect the country from Al Qaeda, listening to Clarke would have been the logical place to start.

I'm starting to think you must be getting a commission. Assuming Clinton was listening to this guy, how did the 911 terrorists get in and out of the US in the years before Bush? Clearly Clarke was not fully on top of their game.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
?!?!. You can't be serious. What Democrat would have been better? I would have preferred a Republican but as a Democrat he was a hell of lot better than Jimmy. He didn't drastically cut the military, he signed welfare reform, he saved Kosovo, he pushed through NAFTA and the WTO. Without the DLC, which Clinton headed, the Democrats would be more of a nightmare than it already is.

I like a lot of his policies; I have ambivalent feelings about the man. He had huge potential, much of which he squandered. E.g., by failing to keep his pants on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
What was he afraid of, he might take a foreign policy action as a leader, a Commander in Chief, for our national to defense, and the Republicans would get so upset they would impeach him?

I don't think he was afraid of anything. But if you think that Clinton could have unilaterally decided to invade Afghanistan, you are in la-la land. For one, the military didn't want to do it.

I'm starting to think you must be getting a commission. Assuming Clinton was listening to this guy, how did the 911 terrorists get in and out of the US in the years before Bush? Clearly Clarke was not fully on top of their game.

The Bush Administration never caught the anthrax dude, not for lack of trying.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who is defending Clinton's lying here? We just think lying about a blow job is less significant than lying to get the country to go to war.

For Spanky, I would edit this if I could as follows:

We just think lying under oath about a blow job is less significant than lying in the absence of an oath to get the country to go to war.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why is it odious to say that a lot of Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives?

I just wish it were true about me.

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What has Dean said that compares to Rove's recent comments?

If you mean divisive and partisan, perhaps the I hate Republicans line or the Republicans have never done an honest day's work line. Or do you think that saying you hate someone is polite form of conversation?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I just wish it were true about me.

You and me both.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't talking about the famous disappearing WMDs. I was talking about all the terrorists that were being trained in Iraq to join Al Queda in its unholy war against Mom, apple pie, and baseball. You must remember that part, the explanation that was offered up when the WMDs failed to appear?

I lost track of all the post hoc justifications. I was satisfied with the justification that Hussein was horrible and deserved to be ousted. That, and that it was reasonable to believe WMDs were there based solely on Hussein's continued cat-and-mouse game with the UN inspectors.