Did bush steal the 2000 elections.

[red states rule]

What no one that supports the "Idea" that Bush stole the election ever manages to note is that the original court held for no recount every time it came before the court. The Florida Supreme Court was made up of 7 Democrats that made an obvious "political" ruling that would have cast Florida electoral college votes into being unable to participate in the vote for President. THAT is what made it a Federal issue.

The 3rd recount ( remember 2 official recounts had already occurred and Bush won both) would have pushed the final decision for who won official past the required deadline for submitting Electors to the College. By law that would have invalidated ANY electors selected by Florida and would have caused a federal problem with how to legally, constitutional decide who won. Gore would have been ahead in total numbers but the LAW requires a base number based on total electors possible and neither had that.

The Florida Supreme Court decision would have disenfranchised the entire State in the election process and would have done what Gore wanted, which was to give him more votes in a truncated College.

When Dems lose a vote, they go right to Court to find a liberal Judge to toss out the votes

 

[Steerpike]

The Constitution specifically provides the power of selecting electors and electing people to federal office to the states. So saying the states should not have the authority doesn't comport with the Constitution. They were given the authority for a reason.

 

[Gunny]

The Constitution specifically provides the power of selecting electors and electing people to federal office to the states. So saying the states should not have the authority doesn't comport with the Constitution. They were given the authority for a reason.

And to appeal a state supreme court's decision, does not the appeal go up the chain of command to the US court of appeals? And from there to the Supreme Court? Which is what happened in this case. It's my understanding that is the purpose for the chain of command within the judicial system in this nation. To review decisions by lower courts.

 

[Steerpike]

And to appeal a state supreme court's decision, does not the appeal go up the chain of command to the US court of appeals? And from there to the Supreme Court? Which is what happened in this case. It's my understanding that is the purpose for the chain of command within the judicial system in this nation. To review decisions by lower courts.

Yeah, at least if there is a federal issue involved. If it's purely a matter of State law, the appeals stop at the State Supreme Court and don't go any higher.

But nevertheless, the power to determine these elections belongs to the states.

The reason the Supreme Court got involved in Florida is that the Florida Supreme Court (and the State government) had screwed it up so badly I don't think there was a choice anymore.

 

[Gunny]

Yeah, at least if there is a federal issue involved. If it's purely a matter of State law, the appeals stop at the State Supreme Court and don't go any higher.

But nevertheless, the power to determine these elections belongs to the states.

The reason the Supreme Court got involved in Florida is that the Florida Supreme Court (and the State government) had screwed it up so badly I don't think there was a choice anymore.

You're making conflicting statements. The President of the United States IS a Federal issue if ever there is one. It's the highest position in the Federal government.

Bush appealed to whatever US Appeals court is in Atlanta. I thought it went from there to SCOTUS.

I normally am arguing the other side. I am all for state's rights on state issues, but as I said however many years ago this thread was originally posted, I don't see the highest position in the Federal government as a state is, nor how anyone else can. The outcome of the Presidential election affects ALL Americans, not just the citizens of an individual state.

 

[Steerpike]

You're making conflicting statements. The President of the United States IS a Federal issue if ever there is one. It's the highest position in the Federal government.

Bush appealed to whatever US Appeals court is in Atlanta. I thought it went from there to SCOTUS.

I normally am arguing the other side. I am all for state's rights on state issues, but as I said however many years ago this thread was originally posted, I don't see the highest position in the Federal government as a state is, nor how anyone else can. The outcome of the Presidential election affects ALL Americans, not just the citizens of an individual state.

That's not a conflicting statement at all. Determination of the President is clearly a State issue. But voting rights, etc. are Constitutional issues, so that bridges the gap into a federal issue. But the States don't even have to have popular elections to begin with, and early on many did not. The manner is entrusted to the States, but if they're going to have voting then there are going to be Constitutional issues that arise.

 

[Gunny]

That's not a conflicting statement at all. Determination of the President is clearly a State issue. But voting rights, etc. are Constitutional issues, so that bridges the gap into a federal issue. But the States don't even have to have popular elections to begin with, and early on many did not. The manner is entrusted to the States, but if they're going to have voting then there are going to be Constitutional issues that arise.

I don't see determination of the who the President of the US as a state issue at all, except in the collective sense. It requires all 50 states to vote. Some or part cannot determine the Presidency. All 50 states acting in concert on an issue, IMO, is a Federal action, not a state one.

 

[jillian]

You're making conflicting statements. The President of the United States IS a Federal issue if ever there is one. It's the highest position in the Federal government.

Bush appealed to whatever US Appeals court is in Atlanta. I thought it went from there to SCOTUS.

I normally am arguing the other side. I am all for state's rights on state issues, but as I said however many years ago this thread was originally posted, I don't see the highest position in the Federal government as a state is, nor how anyone else can. The outcome of the Presidential election affects ALL Americans, not just the citizens of an individual state.

Actually, the difference in Bush v Gore was that never did the USSC decide a matter of state ELECTION LAW that had already been decided by the highest court of the State.

That is a State issue... always has been always will be... hence the Court doing the lowlife move of saying that Bush v Gore had no value as precedent in any other case ever.

 

[Gunny]

Actually, the difference in Bush v Gore was that never did the USSC decide a matter of state ELECTION LAW that had already been decided by the highest court of the State.

That is a State issue... always has been always will be... hence the Court doing the lowlife move of saying that Bush v Gore had no value as precedent in any other case ever.

Guess they set a precedent then, and obviously it no longer is a state issue, and IMO should not be It isn't deciding who the state Governor is. It's deciding who the President of this nation is. That is a Federal position in which the Federal government should have an interest and jurisidiction over.

You don't mind the gov't sticking its nose in where you think it doesn't belong when you agree with it. There was nothing lowlife about it. It clearly was a logical move on the Fed's part to not allow the shennanigans of one state and a smarmy candidate to decide the outcome for the other 49.

You're not exactly the stalwart defender of state's rights. Odd that you are on this one issue.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Wow! Can we still be talking about this? Who knew they was anything left of this dead horse to beat?

Jillian you had me going for a second. I thought you might have had a point. You did, but it was very small. Jurisdiction was taken by the Supremes through Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1257. Basically, federal question jurisdiction which allows the USSC to accept a petition a certiorari from a decision by the state's Supreme Court if it involves a Federal question. What's the federal question here? Equal Protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. One man, one vote.

The reason, the Florida Supreme Court had decided to follow the "Gore Plan" to cherry-pick hand recount areas. This violates the concept of "one man, one vote" and may result in some area's votes counting more than other areas of the state. Further, it is of no moment that Bush was offered to opportunity to have areas he wanted counted to be included. It still would have resulted in an uneven vote counting. The only way it could have been "ok" is if the entire state was hand-counted. But, as another member stated, there was no time for that, because the electors needed to be seated.

As to why the court offered this as having no precedential value, it was clearly uncomfortable with the role it was forced into here. The last time there was an election this close, it was decided in the House of Representatives. This is a political question and the politicians should have decided it. Typical of Congress, it shrank from its duty. Typical of Liberals, they ran to the Court for an anti-democratic solution to get what they want. Also, typical of Liberals they have had sour grapes ever since their little protector let them down.

My advice, grow up, accept defeat with some semblance of grace and come back to fight another day.

 

[dilloduck]

Wow! Can we still be talking about this? Who knew they was anything left of this dead horse to beat?

Jillian you had me going for a second. I thought you might have had a point. You did, but it was very small. Jurisdiction was taken by the Supremes through Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1257. Basically, federal question jurisdiction which allows the USSC to accept a petition a certiorari from a decision by the state's Supreme Court if it involves a Federal question. What's the federal question here? Equal Protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. One man, one vote.

The reason, the Florida Supreme Court had decided to follow the "Gore Plan" to cherry-pick hand recount areas. This violates the concept of "one man, one vote" and may result in some area's votes counting more than other areas of the state. Further, it is of no moment that Bush was offered to opportunity to have areas he wanted counted to be included. It still would have resulted in an uneven vote counting. The only way it could have been "ok" is if the entire state was hand-counted. But, as another member stated, there was no time for that, because the electors needed to be seated.

As to why the court offered this as having no precedential value, it was clearly uncomfortable with the role it was forced into here. The last time there was an election this close, it was decided in the House of Representatives. This is a political question and the politicians should have decided it. Typical of Congress, it shrank from its duty. Typical of Liberals, they ran to the Court for an anti-democratic solution to get what they want. Also, typical of Liberals they have had sour grapes ever since their little protector let them down.

My advice, grow up, accept defeat with some semblance of grace and come back to fight another day.

They can't. It's part of the whole "victim package" that they rely on for support. " If you feel as if you have been done wrong, oppressed, cheated and life is unfair, vote liberal. " They promise that they will resolve all those issues.

 

[sealybobo]

Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount



April 4, 2001
Web posted at: 11:26 a.m. EDT (1526 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- If a recount of Florida's disputed votes in last year's close presidential election had been allowed to proceed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush still would have won the White House, two newspapers reported Wednesday.

The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.

Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."

CNN.com - Bush still wins Florida in newspaper recount - April 4, 2001

Ok,

did they steal ohio?

hold an american for yrs without habius corpus? hose padilla

illegally delete white house emails?

politicize the justice dept?

torture?

spy on americans? unconstiutional

lie us into a war?

neglegently ignore 9 11 warnings?

neglegently lose or steal billions in iraq?

defy sobpenas

link saddam to 9 11

I could go on but i'm tired. we'll start here.

of course they stole florida. you'd have to be bias or naïve to not think so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ok,

did they steal ohio?

hold an american for yrs without habius corpus? hose padilla

illegally delete white house emails?

politicize the justice dept?

torture?

spy on americans? unconstiutional

lie us into a war?

neglegently ignore 9 11 warnings?

neglegently lose or steal billions in iraq?

defy sobpenas

link saddam to 9 11

I could go on but i'm tired. we'll start here.

of course they stole florida. you'd have to be bias or naïve to not think so.

You are a retard. Remind me again how this polished team stole 3 national elections, 2000, 2002 and 2004 but just forgot how in 2006? The libs lost because they were and still are IDIOTS.The Republicans screwed up and got voted out in 2006 and the dems are gonna have the same problem when it becomes obvious they stand for all the wrong things. The middle elects in this country, not the far right or far left.

 

[sealybobo]

You are a retard. Remind me again how this polished team stole 3 national elections, 2000, 2002 and 2004 but just forgot how in 2006? The libs lost because they were and still are IDIOTS.The Republicans screwed up and got voted out in 2006 and the dems are gonna have the same problem when it becomes obvious they stand for all the wrong things. The middle elects in this country, not the far right or far left.[/QUo

they didn't have to steal 02

So you are so afraid the far left will rule that you turned a blind eye to all the illegal and neglegent stuff I listed? The gop has you so brainwashed that you allowed them to do all the most unconstitutional, unpatriotic and unamerican things I listed above?

clinton did rule from the center. so will obama. if he ruled from the left, he would not win a second term.

mccain would ruled from the center but the gop has a right wing agenda.

in your tiny mind, that's better than any democrat, even though Clinton worked with dole, newt and barr.

bush ruled from the far right.

do you know what pnac is? that's far right. the dems don't have a far left plan.

gore wouldn't have ruined america like bush did, and he would not have sent jobs overseas, weakened the dollar, deregulated the mortgage industry, ignored 9 11 warnings, told federal prosecutors to illegally prosecute dems, tortured, deleted emails, refused to testify.

he may have campaigned from inside the white house, but who doesn't.

he wouldn't have appointed unqualified buddies to federal positions like gao and fema.

started a war for oil. taken away rights from americans, bankrupted the treasury, broke the military so he could outsource it to blackwater, let companies pollute.

I can't wait to hear you complain next year about things you defended this yr. I hope they tax the fuck out of you and give it all to crackheads. lol.

do you have any idea how many bogus pentagon contracts bush buddies are getting? they fooled you into letting them rape the treasury because it was defense spending. they stole billions. what benefit do dems get by giving to por people? other than it is the right thing to do.

what benefit did the gop get with all those lucrative defense contracts? $ baby!

still waiting for it to trickle down and for consumer confidence to go up. still waiting for them to create jobs. oh yea, that's not gov's role.

lol

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are a retard. Remind me again how this polished team stole 3 national elections, 2000, 2002 and 2004 but just forgot how in 2006? The libs lost because they were and still are IDIOTS.The Republicans screwed up and got voted out in 2006 and the dems are gonna have the same problem when it becomes obvious they stand for all the wrong things. The middle elects in this country, not the far right or far left.[/QUo

they didn't have to steal 02

So you are so afraid the far left will rule that you turned a blind eye to all the illegal and neglegent stuff I listed? The gop has you so brainwashed that you allowed them to do all the most unconstitutional, unpatriotic and unamerican things I listed above?

clinton did rule from the center. so will obama. if he ruled from the left, he would not win a second term.

mccain would ruled from the center but the gop has a right wing agenda.

in your tiny mind, that's better than any democrat, even though Clinton worked with dole, newt and barr.

bush ruled from the far right.

do you know what pnac is? that's far right. the dems don't have a far left plan.

gore wouldn't have ruined america like bush did, and he would not have sent jobs overseas, weakened the dollar, deregulated the mortgage industry, ignored 9 11 warnings, told federal prosecutors to illegally prosecute dems, tortured, deleted emails, refused to testify.

he may have campaigned from inside the white house, but who doesn't.

he wouldn't have appointed unqualified buddies to federal positions like gao and fema.

started a war for oil. taken away rights from americans, bankrupted the treasury, broke the military so he could outsource it to blackwater, let companies pollute.

I can't wait to hear you complain next year about things you defended this yr. I hope they tax the fuck out of you and give it all to crackheads. lol.

do you have any idea how many bogus pentagon contracts bush buddies are getting? they fooled you into letting them rape the treasury because it was defense spending. they stole billions. what benefit do dems get by giving to por people? other than it is the right thing to do.

what benefit did the gop get with all those lucrative defense contracts? $ baby!

still waiting for it to trickle down and for consumer confidence to go up. still waiting for them to create jobs. oh yea, that's not gov's role.

lol

You are the ignorant one. Bush can't even keep secrets in the Intel community but he stole elections years ago and no one has told us about it yet. Hope your tinfoil hat isn't to tight, might cut that blood flow to your one brain cell.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ok,

did they steal ohio?

hold an american for yrs without habius corpus? hose padilla

illegally delete white house emails?

politicize the justice dept?

torture?

spy on americans? unconstiutional

lie us into a war?

neglegently ignore 9 11 warnings?

neglegently lose or steal billions in iraq?

defy sobpenas

link saddam to 9 11

I could go on but i'm tired. we'll start here.

of course they stole florida. you'd have to be bias or naïve to not think so.

I'm almost hesitant to write this....pearls before swine and all that...but what the hell. It appears there isn't one single sentence of a left-wing talking point you haven't bought into. But, I'll answer each of your charges in series.

Steal Ohio?
As I recall, although Ohio had voting irregularities in Cleveland nobody at the time, not even the rabble-rousers were saying that Bush didn't win Ohio legitimately. I'll see your Ohio and raise you a MO. The BS in St. Louis where they kept polling places in Black areas open half the night until they wee sure Ashcroft had lost what the real election theft. And in the face of that outright theft John Ashcroft had the grace to accept defeat. Unlike Gore.

Jose aka Hose?
Is there a murderer you don't want to defend? Maybe I should become a murderer and you would defend me then too....hmmmm. Padilla was initially held as a material witness and then designated an Enemy Combatant. True he was held without Constitutional right to Habius Corpus appeal. My take on this is that Padilla's designation was the weakest of the lot. Since he was an American citizen, he probably should not have been so designated. But, on the other side of the argument, I think in this new type of war where extra-national actors from dozens of different nation-states have declared and executed acts of war upon the United States, the fundemental rules of the game have changed. Our justice department and judiciary and legislature have to re-examine how we justly handle this new set of criminals. Padilla played a part in that. Through Padilla we learned that designating an American Citizen an Enemy Combatant (even though he is one), goes too far.

Deleting E-mails:
Maybe yes, maybe no. Being an IT Consultant, my guess is someone just screwed the pooch on this one. You can say otherwise, nobody has the facts, but I think some relatively junior person just mucked it up and some relatively senior person wasn't exercising the oversight they should have been. Not excusing it, just saying it was not some major conspiracy.

Politicize the DOJ?
Like it wasn't already politicized. The Democrats have the panties in a collective twist over this because the DOJ was supporting all their issues and following their political agenda. Bush, or more likely Rove, tried to reverse that trend and balance it out and BOOM! All lawyers belong to the Democrats and they will fight to the death to keep that true. They hate that there is a single Scalia in existence. This is all much ado about nothing unless you are left-wing hack.

Torture?
As torture goes, water-boarding is pretty tame stuff. If it doesn't leave a mark, is it really torture? Read "Scars and Bars" concerning Captain Red McDaniel and his stay in the Hanoi Hilton if you want to find out what torture is just so you won't mistake it. The specious argument about US servicemen not being subjected to torture if we don't use it ourselves isn't worth the time it took for me to write it. That's like the gun control argument. If we outlaw guns criminals won't use them, duh. No, they'll break two laws instead of just one. We shouldn't use torture because that's not the best way to get information. But, as between not being able to get information at all and torture, we should torture and not talk about it.

Spy on Americans?
Dork. Have you even read the details of what this is about? You need to stand right next to Sen. Leahy so I can hit both with the same rotten fish. If you listened to the testimony on this question you would know that it is absolutely unworkable to get a judge to ok every instance of communication intercept that is would be ok to do. I'm just talking about all the intercepts that neither you or I would have a problem with. But, the Dems want that to be the law. The issue is far too technical to go in-depth right here, but calling it spying on Americans is just bizarre and specious.

Lie us into war?
I must say that I was in favor of going to war with Iraq in spite of Bush's arguments not because of them. I think there is a completely different, better and more cogent set of reasons for war with Iraq. But, insofar as the administration laid out a set of reasons, namely WMD, terrorist connections and few lesser arguments, I'll deal with what they said. I think they did not really believe that Iraq posed an immediate danger to the US because of WMDs. I think they did TRULY believe they had WMDs though. I think they used that as a pretext for war just because it was a no-brainer, of course they have WMD everyone thought so. Clinton, the Brits, the Germans even the Russians thought they had WMD. After all, they used poison gas on the Iranians and the Kurds. So clearly they had them at some point. I think the administration got hoist on their own petard on that one. I do think they honestly believed that Saddam had the weapons though.

Negligent on 9/11?
Nobody thinks that except people who just need another glass of hateraide for Bush.

negligent with money in Iraq?
Yep. I think that's pretty clear. It's not defensible. They could have done that better. One of a long list of things that could have been done better in Iraq.

Defy subpoenas?
Only Congressional ones and that's the BS that goes on in every administration. Some of it is actual Congress vs. the Executive political wrangling that is supposed to go on. Some of it is political dem v. repub BS that just happens. The Congress doesn't get to have everything they want just because they want it. Read the Federalist Papers.

Link Saddam to 9/11?
I'd have to see the quote you are talking about there. I don't recall that claim being made by the administration in the run up to the war. Maybe some BS after the war. What I remember was the administration linking terrorists to Saddam not necessarily UBL. If you recall Saddam had started paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 per bomber. He was harboring one of the top sought after terrorist in the world in Baghdad. He also had a terrorist training camp in Iraq which was uncovered after the invasion. So, arguing that Saddam had clean hands on the terror issue is patent bullshit. Likewise, arguing that Saddam was a planner of 9/11 is bullshit. But, I don't recall that claim being made.

Look I've never been a fan of GWB and I'll call him out when he's wrong on an issue, but making up BS claims to try to make him look even worse is unnecessary and makes your arguments less believable.

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm almost hesitant to write this....pearls before swine and all that...but what the hell. It appears there isn't one single sentence of a left-wing talking point you haven't bought into. But, I'll answer each of your charges in series.

Steal Ohio?
As I recall, although Ohio had voting irregularities in Cleveland nobody at the time, not even the rabble-rousers were saying that Bush didn't win Ohio legitimately. I'll see your Ohio and raise you a MO. The BS in St. Louis where they kept polling places in Black areas open half the night until they wee sure Ashcroft had lost what the real election theft. And in the face of that outright theft John Ashcroft had the grace to accept defeat. Unlike Gore.

Jose aka Hose?
Is there a murderer you don't want to defend? Maybe I should become a murderer and you would defend me then too....hmmmm. Padilla was initially held as a material witness and then designated an Enemy Combatant. True he was held without Constitutional right to Habius Corpus appeal. My take on this is that Padilla's designation was the weakest of the lot. Since he was an American citizen, he probably should not have been so designated. But, on the other side of the argument, I think in this new type of war where extra-national actors from dozens of different nation-states have declared and executed acts of war upon the United States, the fundemental rules of the game have changed. Our justice department and judiciary and legislature have to re-examine how we justly handle this new set of criminals. Padilla played a part in that. Through Padilla we learned that designating an American Citizen an Enemy Combatant (even though he is one), goes too far.

Deleting E-mails:
Maybe yes, maybe no. Being an IT Consultant, my guess is someone just screwed the pooch on this one. You can say otherwise, nobody has the facts, but I think some relatively junior person just mucked it up and some relatively senior person wasn't exercising the oversight they should have been. Not excusing it, just saying it was not some major conspiracy.

Politicize the DOJ?
Like it wasn't already politicized. The Democrats have the panties in a collective twist over this because the DOJ was supporting all their issues and following their political agenda. Bush, or more likely Rove, tried to reverse that trend and balance it out and BOOM! All lawyers belong to the Democrats and they will fight to the death to keep that true. They hate that there is a single Scalia in existence. This is all much ado about nothing unless you are left-wing hack.

Torture?
As torture goes, water-boarding is pretty tame stuff. If it doesn't leave a mark, is it really torture? Read "Scars and Bars" concerning Captain Red McDaniel and his stay in the Hanoi Hilton if you want to find out what torture is just so you won't mistake it. The specious argument about US servicemen not being subjected to torture if we don't use it ourselves isn't worth the time it took for me to write it. That's like the gun control argument. If we outlaw guns criminals won't use them, duh. No, they'll break two laws instead of just one. We shouldn't use torture because that's not the best way to get information. But, as between not being able to get information at all and torture, we should torture and not talk about it.

Spy on Americans?
Dork. Have you even read the details of what this is about? You need to stand right next to Sen. Leahy so I can hit both with the same rotten fish. If you listened to the testimony on this question you would know that it is absolutely unworkable to get a judge to ok every instance of communication intercept that is would be ok to do. I'm just talking about all the intercepts that neither you or I would have a problem with. But, the Dems want that to be the law. The issue is far too technical to go in-depth right here, but calling it spying on Americans is just bizarre and specious.

Lie us into war?
I must say that I was in favor of going to war with Iraq in spite of Bush's arguments not because of them. I think there is a completely different, better and more cogent set of reasons for war with Iraq. But, insofar as the administration laid out a set of reasons, namely WMD, terrorist connections and few lesser arguments, I'll deal with what they said. I think they did not really believe that Iraq posed an immediate danger to the US because of WMDs. I think they did TRULY believe they had WMDs though. I think they used that as a pretext for war just because it was a no-brainer, of course they have WMD everyone thought so. Clinton, the Brits, the Germans even the Russians thought they had WMD. After all, they used poison gas on the Iranians and the Kurds. So clearly they had them at some point. I think the administration got hoist on their own petard on that one. I do think they honestly believed that Saddam had the weapons though.

Negligent on 9/11?
Nobody thinks that except people who just need another glass of hateraide for Bush.

negligent with money in Iraq?
Yep. I think that's pretty clear. It's not defensible. They could have done that better. One of a long list of things that could have been done better in Iraq.

Defy subpoenas?
Only Congressional ones and that's the BS that goes on in every administration. Some of it is actual Congress vs. the Executive political wrangling that is supposed to go on. Some of it is political dem v. repub BS that just happens. The Congress doesn't get to have everything they want just because they want it. Read the Federalist Papers.

Link Saddam to 9/11?
I'd have to see the quote you are talking about there. I don't recall that claim being made by the administration in the run up to the war. Maybe some BS after the war. What I remember was the administration linking terrorists to Saddam not necessarily UBL. If you recall Saddam had started paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $10,000 per bomber. He was harboring one of the top sought after terrorist in the world in Baghdad. He also had a terrorist training camp in Iraq which was uncovered after the invasion. So, arguing that Saddam had clean hands on the terror issue is patent bullshit. Likewise, arguing that Saddam was a planner of 9/11 is bullshit. But, I don't recall that claim being made.

Look I've never been a fan of GWB and I'll call him out when he's wrong on an issue, but making up BS claims to try to make him look even worse is unnecessary and makes your arguments less believable.

Great post and great points, but arguing with these guys is like clapping with one hand. Your wasting your time. Most of these people actually think Bush is the only president to ever win with out winning the popular vote. These same people also do not realize or care to believe that in 04 bush won with a larger majority of the popular vote than anyone since Reagan.

You can show them how it is true over and over and still they will not believe it. Most of them think Clinton was swept into power with massive majorities when in fact he won both times with pluralities smaller than 50% of the vote.

 

[Mike]

No, he didnt steal the election imo.

 

[jillian]

Great post and great points, but arguing with these guys is like clapping with one hand. Your wasting your time. Most of these people actually think Bush is the only president to ever win with out winning the popular vote. These same people also do not realize or care to believe that in 04 bush won with a larger majority of the popular vote than anyone since Reagan.

You can show them how it is true over and over and still they will not believe it. Most of them think Clinton was swept into power with massive majorities when in fact he won both times with pluralities smaller than 50% of the vote.

The problem here is that the Supreme Court issue the only decision in its history, to my knowledge, that they specifically said had no value as precedent. The reason for this was that they made a determination which superceded a state's highest court on an election law issue. Big no no. S. Ct never did that before. And I can guarantee it won't ever do that again.

Is that theft? Dunno. But I can tell you that Bush v Gore is an embarrassment as a decision.

 

[Toro]

Necropost!

Answer - No.