<p>"I didnt have sex with an intern"</p>
<p>initially NOT the bigger lie, but after clinton lied under oath, yes it became the bigger lie.</p>
<p>Well, it is certainly a bigger lie than "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."</p>
<p>Let me get this straight Seth. Lying about an extra-marital relationship, under aoth or otherwise, is worse than lying about a country's military capability in order to send a fleet of 200,000 soldiers from 40 nations at the cost of $300 Billion and over 20,000 lives (including Iraqi civilians which probably do not count in Bush's racist eyes) just so that you can get the oil to equalize at $50+/barrel? Wow, you have a strange sense of justice.</p>
<p>Ok, I took the initiative to look for the quote where Bush himself confesses of neglectling Bin Laden: Here it is:</p>
<p>"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002</p>
<p>And this is his stupid response in the presidential debate about this:</p>
<p>"Uhh Gosh, I.. don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
- George W. Bush, 10/13/2004</p>
<p>ummm..... that doesnt look like exaggerating to me. Haha, and uc_benz says bush is the lesser of the two evil. Its actually dumber of the two evils to be accurate.</p>
<p>look, i lean slightly yo the right and i hated bill clinton, so yeah, of course i think what h said is worse. Besides, we don't know if iraq really doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Haha, you're obviously liberal alexandre, so umm i'm not gonna say anything more.</p>
<p>oh and why does everyone think that bush invaded iraq for oil? That clearly makes no sense cause america's ecnomy isn't exactly umm satble and aren't the gas prices pretty high? That arfgument is not exactly good.</p>
<p>haha. looks like someone is trying to divert the topic from Bush neglecting Bin Laden to invading Iraq for oil.</p>
<p>i'm not diverting the topic primitive, i'm just responding to alexandre's comment.</p>
<p>And i agree with Alexandre that Bush is a racist like most other conservatives. why would he even care about all the iraqi civilians killed? All he's worried about is his political stability and getting people brainwashed over Bin laden, even thought he cares less about terrorism.</p>
<p>Whether he invaded for oil is debatable (not in my mind... but people in general still hold differing views about it)... The fact is he went against what the UN said and killed THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF CIVILIANS IN IRAQ, THEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DIED IN THE SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS.</p>
<p>Anything that results in that kind of a carnage for no plausible reason is far worse then what clinton did...</p>
<p>Bush is a terrorist himself. He isnt catching the <em>real</em> terrorists but rather killing thousands instaed in wars. Oh well, i personally think he's as crazy as Stalin (<em>but more dumb</em>) , obsessed with war, and would do anything in the world for power.</p>
<p>To get to your post about bin laden btw primitive... The reason he doesnt really care much about catching him is that Bush and his family have business dealings with the bin ladens to the tune of millions of dollars...</p>
<p>They also happen to have $2 million in a company called the Carlyle group of which Bush Sr. just happened to be a senior consultant for...</p>
<p>This could run to pages but the bottom line is that straight after 9/11 bin laden was the obvious suspect... But Bush managed to divert the media attention and soon people actually thought that Sadam was responsible for 9/11 (1 in 3 americans believed that before the Iraq war according to a Gallup poll carried out just before)..</p>
<p>Need i say more?</p>
<p>
[quote]
under aoth or otherwise, is worse than lying about a country's military capability in order to send a fleet of 200,000 soldiers from 40 nations at the cost of $300 Billion and over 20,000 lives (including Iraqi civilians which probably do not count in Bush's racist eyes)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>PLEASE don't pull a Michael Moore on me. There's a difference between lying and making a tough decision on what later is found to be inaccurate information.</p>
<p>If he really did it out of malice, it would, indeed, have been a horrible thing, but I just don't think that's the case. Same for oil - if that turned out to be the main cause for war it would be a horrible, horrible thing, but I don't think that's it either. Iraq's exports have dropped exponentially since the war (and we're now paying nearly twice as much for gas as the day we invaded). If it was all about oil, why did we not march to Baghdad in '91 and take control of everything? Why have we let the Iraqi's work out how they want to control their oil today? Why haven't we imposed quotas etc?</p>
<p>Wow, Democrats seem so willing to forget the past!</p>
<p>Do you remember a place called...SOMALIA! Clinton got suckered into sending the Marines back in as 'nation builders' even though they had just left the area after a successful defense of food shipments. Not to mention, he deliberately violated Executive Orders of the Presidency not to engage in deliberate or willful assassination of foreign political or military leaders. Then he sent AC130 gunships firing at random buildings in the city, thus killing many innocent civilians.</p>
<p>Hm, let's talk about Bosnia. Clinton claimed that as the Commander in Chief of the Arkansas National Guard (lol) he was qualified to make military decisions. So while campaigning for President he said he would bomb the Serbs! So in May of 1993, he sent Warren Christopher to convince the Europeans to allow him to do just that. Christopher went with the 'strongest message possible' to urge England, France, and Germany that he was fully committed to this course. So while Christopher was over there trying to persuade the countries to join a coalition, Clinton went on national television and said "bombing the Serbs probably wouldn't be necessary." The Europeans were pi$sed off to say the least! So a year later Clinton threatened to take action again, but lo and behold, the Serbs had already began their invasion of Bosnia.</p>
<p>Here's a classic Bill Clinton quote:
[quote]
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's another one:
[quote]
Bill Clinton during a visit in Italy, to his hosts: "Just think, we are walking on the very ground where Romulus and Remus walked".
[/quote]
Hey Billy, Romulus and Remus are fictional characters!</p>
<p>If Bush had genuinely believe that he was doing what he did to find WMD's, the it is still MORE acceptable then what he did... not really acceptable, just more acceptable..</p>
<p>However, the fact still remains that Hans Blix and the rest of his team concluded that there was NO EVIDENCE of WMD's in Iraq...</p>
<p>And, why did he change the reason for invading Iraq, from WMD's to "liberating the people of Iraq?"... Maybe because the WMD's didnt exist? Just something to think about..</p>
<p>Im not saying the reason was oil... but no one could be naive enough to fall for WMD's</p>
<p>uc_benz, you are even better than Bush in diverting topics. Screw Clinton for now. Bush is a terrorist himself and can be considered as the reason why Bin Laden isnt caught after all this time. And watercannon, its truly is sad to have such corrupt leaders in such a superpower as America. </p>
<p>"And, why did he change the reason for invading Iraq, from WMD's to "liberating the people of Iraq?"... Maybe because the WMD's didnt exist? Just something to think about.."</p>
<p>Do you find it funny that Bush attacks country that are not an emminent threat while ignoring the REAL threats as N Korea and Iran? This man is must be eliminated!</p>
<p>watercannon, i applaud you for your reasonable explanation as to why Bush is ignoring Laden. But lets see how conservatives get out of this one! My original message was:</p>
<p>Ok, I took the initiative to look for the quote where Bush himself confesses of neglectling Bin Laden: Here it is:</p>
<p>"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002</p>
<p>And this is his stupid response in the presidential debate about this:</p>
<p>"Uhh Gosh, I.. don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
- George W. Bush, 10/13/2004</p>
<p>ummm..... that doesnt look like exaggerating to me. Haha, and uc_benz says bush is the lesser of the two evil. Its actually dumber of the two evils to be accurate.</p>
<p>hahah. Looks like the conservatives are OWNED!!! They now have two choices- either to stay silent in shame for voting for this man OR to divert to another topic as they usually do. But i would LOVE an explanation from conservatives as to why Bush is ignoring our main enemy when he said those quotes while allowing for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis (racist) and American people. Is is because he's the ultimate terrorist? hmm..... </p>
<p>And Maize, just because you cant justify or provide a valid argument doesnt mean you have to mention Michael Moore. Moore is not a terrorist not is he dumb like our president!!</p>
<p>one question primitive and watercannon, alexandre-</p>
<p>would u rather have iraqi's under Saddam?</p>
<p>he was a tyrant, a mad man, he needed to go.</p>
<p>what michael morre seems to have nicely left out of his books (which watercannon seems to have read SO thoroughly) is the conditions under Saddam.</p>
<p>doobeedoobeedo...(cough cough LBJ)...(cough cough Vietnam)...conservatives are racist? :)...that's funny....if i'm not mistaken...Lincoln was a Republican :)....tsk tsk....although...i did like Clinton....Bush 41 and 43 can't compare....Clinton may have liked his willy a tad bit too slick but...eh....executive/administrative-wise...he was a good president....very conservative at that and VERY successful in a majority of his policy proposals.....Michael Moore is a morbidly obese ogre...please dont' bring his propaganda in this....he disgusts me.......and yes..yes he is dumb....he's dumber than our president....he's angry, because life dealt him a bad hand as the king of blimps and an ace of cholesterol...and he feels he can take it out on republicans...i swear ever since that whole General Motor's documentary his heads swollen to the size of his body....which is quite a feat....he's an unintellegent hippo that tries to spread false rumors and fills the public with crazy assumptions.....he's paranoid and needs to visit a professional dietician!</p>
<p>I am glad Iraq was liberated...but I really don't think Bush had his heart set on the Iraqi ppl in general....he had some sort of external motive...and yeah...those who say Iraq was for oil are living in an alternate reality....yes that was something we got outta iraq but it wasn't the ultimate reason for going in there...</p>
<p>and just how bad was the condition of Iraqis under Saddam illbeback?</p>
<p>Much better than the current one IMHO</p>