Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bonnie, Oct 10, 2005.
Lying to protect the privacy of your family and lying to send innocent American young people to war are two entirely different things. The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you and your ideology.
The fact that you cannot tell the difference or the dichotomy of saying there were unaccounted for WMD and then later 'no evidence' is simply disingenuous and shows a considered lack of reading comprehension.
The fact that you are disingenuous for ignoring the fact that UN inspectors reported no WMDs in Iraq and no nukes before the war started and that the Downing Street memo proves that our leaders knew there were none and proves that there were no attempts to validate suspect intelligence reports while our administration told us over and over again that Saddam had biological, chemical and nuclear WMD when there were none proves that you are disingenuous disingenous disingenous. And so is your unfaltering support for this incompetent administration and this incompetently managed, illegal war. And you are disingenuous for not caring enough about the troops to not care whether they live or die over a corrupt political agenda. And you are also disingenous for caring more about a president lying about getting a blowjob to protect his reputation on international tv than you are about caring that our administration blatantly lied to us all to coerce positive public support for a baseless war. You sir are disingenously disingenous in the most disingenous way possible.
and you should have been able to extrapolate that his 'lying to protect his family', not to mention the behavior served to embarass his family on a grand scale, as well as to endanger the country due to his loss of credibility through perjury and obstruction.
The point of the story was showing the lack of consistency in Clinton's speeches after 2001 and currently. In 2003 Clinton says there was evidence.
You take a statement pointing out your lack of reading comprehension and attempt to assign me an opinion on WMD that is inaccurate.
Read the article again. It points out the dichotomy of Bill Clinton's stance on this particular issue, that you attempt to use the fact that I point this out to me to assign an opinion to me doesn't make this assignation any more coherent or correct. This points more to your ideological inanities and attempt to protect a "hero" of yours than it does to your intelligence.
Hey that's fine. Let's snicker about Clinton getting a bj from an intern. Nevermind the fact that American soldiers are being shot at by savages in a rubble pit in the middle east right now because the administration lied and that they don't have the necessary body armor to protect them because the war is being incompetently managed. But hey! I've got a magnet on my car that says "support the troops!" Slick Willie sure was an immoral guy. He got a bj in the white house! I sure do love Bush though. His administration lied to the public and then sent our young men in uniform over to be slaughtered so that we could all get better gas prices. But now gas is over three dollars a gallon so I guess we'd better "stay the course!" I sure do love that Bush!
Or the fact that in the tapes Monica mentions that he spoke to her about the fact that he believed the Chinese were attempting to gather information in order to blackmail him.
The position of the President should not be held by somebody so desperate to hide such a secret that he becomes blackmailable and later gives secrets involving rocket technology to the Chinese.
Or the fact that there were at the same time he "lied to protect his family" people in prison for the same crime.
Again, you seem incapable of letting go of the sex part, they do have therapy for that. Try the consequences of his attempted cover-up.
Hey hey, you guys are right! It's Clinton's opinions on the war we should be discussing. Not the fact that our administration took us to war based on faulty intelligence and bogus public reasons! Clinton's the bad guy here all the way! God forbid a politician change his or her stance on an issue over the course of seven years! We want a politician who can stick to a decision no matter how foolhearty or ignorant it may be! Not some flip-flopping waffle-iron! Support the troops! Whoo hooo!
Separate names with a comma.