Posted by pcdrs on August 19, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very right Richard, that is an excellent example of republican mind-boggling hypocrisy.

Posted by stamfordite on August 19, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anything like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is?" Bombing an asprin factory? Hypocrisy - yeah, right.

Posted by junebug on August 19, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Stamfordite, one can be cognizant of the royal and very dangerous screw-ups of George W. Bush and NOT be a Democrat or a Clinton supporter. Some folks just don't give a rip about the (R) or the (D) behind someone's name. Supporting the insupportable speaks volumes.

Posted by ddawkins71 on August 19, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How could that idiot forget something he never learned?

Posted by robertwp on August 19, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Anything like "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is?" Bombing an asprin factory? Hypocrisy - yeah, right."

Actually nothing like that.
If you republicans can't get past the fact that Clinton getting a "Lewinsky" and Bush taking us into war based on lies are as different as night and day then there is no hope for you.

"I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Bill Clinton LIE
Result: Increased Marital Tension

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
George W. Bush LIE
Result: America launches a war that has lasted longer than WWII

Operation Infinite Reach
Aspirin factory bombed
Intelligence linked factory to chemical weapons and OBL
1 killed 10 wounded

Iraq War
4144 Americans killed
Over 30,000 wounded
Nobody is counting the dead Iraqis
Estimates are in the hundreds of thousands

Stamfordite can't tell the difference.
Probably breathing too much chemical waste in Houston. His blind allegiance to the Republican brand may also play a role. Bless his heart!

Posted by Gillett on August 19, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Richard Smallridge is a petty and simplistic curmudgeon who revels in others' faults. Really pathetic. How a person speaks is not something to ridicule -- many idiots can flow words well while some like Einstein had trouble with them. Thankfully, how one pronounces Nuclear or Law or Ask is irrelevant to most of us. Too bad about you, Richie.

However, if Smallridge's drivel was simply the President's comment about Russia's invasion of Georgia and its comparison to US/Iraq, then he fails again. The difference is too obvious for anyone who watched the startup to Iraq: UN resolutions, incredible human rights violations in Iraq, the attempts for high-grade weapons..... do the research.

Clinton: "..... what the meaning of is is..."
OB: "...we are the ones we've been waiting for..." These are fine by me, but are they OK with you Richie?

Bottom line: it takes a small person to deride another's speech pattern or grammatical errors. And it takes an even smaller one to do so simply to play cheap politics.

Posted by Tumbleweed on August 19, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robert you forget one thing about the length of WW2 and the current one.

In 1942 American was bombed and the full strength of the US was put against those that would do us harm. In 2001 we were bombed again and we have yet to bring the might of the US against her enemies.

And I'd give you Clinton over Bush if Clinton hadn't lied to my face.

Posted by stamfordite on August 19, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Faulty intellegence does not equate lies. The faulty intellegence was performed during the Clinton administration. Could that have been a set up? Of course, other countries had faulty intellegence too.

Bill Clinton's lie did not result in marital tension, in resulted in impeachment because he lied under oath.

If our goal here is to bash Bush, I'm ready willing and able to join in. I'm no fan of his. It's amazing that the worst of what he's done has gone virtually unnoticed, while we still dredge up bits about faulty intellegence.

Posted by robertwp on August 19, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Bill Clinton's lie did not result in marital tension, in resulted in impeachment because he lied under oath."

True, but you need to mention that the impeachment failed because it was not seen to be serious enough to warrant removal from office. He should have tried the Bush tactic of simply refusing to take the oath. That would have saved him. That is the weird thing about the American Justice system. Arrests aren't the same thing as indictments.

BTW When did you talk to Hillary about her marital tension? You seem to know a lot about it.

Posted by apricottx on August 19, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It wasn't faulty intelligence, it was doctored intelligence. The IAEA knew from being there in Iraq that there were no WMD, but Bush the decider, went to war anyway.

Meanwhile, the culprits who attacked us are free.

And, sorry, but a world leader like the President of the U.S., should be able to string two sentences together and more. We got what was elected, a "C" student who didn't earn his way into Yale, it was family ties that got him there The smirking chimp is an embarrassment to our nation, dem, repub and independent alike.

Posted by robertwp on August 19, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Faulty intellegence does not equate lies."

The administration knew that the Niger statement was a lie. That has been proven. If Bush didn't know then he wasn't doing the job that the Supreme Court appointed him to do. Which is worse?

(I think that it is priceless that stamfordite can’t spell intelligence.)

Posted by stamfordite on August 19, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bobby, I know this is a technical point, but the impeachment didn't fail - BC was successfully impeached. He wasn't removed from office by the Senate. Only the House can impeach, which they did. Refusing to take the oath wouldn't have worked in his situation - it was a civil trial. He tried to get the trial delayed until he left office, but failed. On that point I have to agree with Clinton.

And apricot, Bush was not a "C" student. Remember when that was brought up in the last election and transcripts shown he had higher grades than John Kerry? I guess not.....

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, on the Georgian conflict.....who attacked who first??? Apparently the MSM is not reporting that Georgian troops fired rockets into South Ossetia first in an attempt to overtake the region. Seems it all involves an oil and gas pipeline that runs through the country.

More lies from the Bush & Co. They wouldn't dare invade a sovereign nation....give me a break!

Please watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lptVAb...

Posted by apricottx on August 19, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

stamfordite, prove it! Where's your link?

Posted by robertwp on August 19, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/was...

This report says that Kerry and Bush had almost identical grades. Why does this matter?

Stamfordite, You are right. Impeachment is a technical term but you are wrong in your assessment of its meaning. A successful impeachment would result in a conviction in the Senate and then removal from office just like a successful indictment would result in a conviction and some sort of punishment. Clinton was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate. What the Senate decided was that the impeachment charges were "trumped up". If that is your definition of success then you have really lowered the bar. You could say that an indictment/impeachment was successful if it moved the case forward but I think most people would agree that if it moved the case to an acquittal then it failed. In the real world, an indictment or an impeachment could only be considered successful if it brought about a conviction. Bill Clinton’s impeachment did not and he finished out his term and pardoned his rich friends. That is why I said that the impeachment failed.

Posted by Tumbleweed on August 19, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets just admit on both sides that BC and W are the two worst presidents in history, call it a draw so we can get past yesterday. Tomorrow is only as good as we make the foundation for tomorrow today.

Posted by officerx on August 19, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about just admitting noone is immune from making mistakes....being human.

For you folks who think GW and BC are the most evil, threatening, lieing people who ever walked the face of the earth....why don't ya'll run for president instead of just b*tching about everything. But, like most people who believe that, I already know the excuse. It is all rigged, the government is against you all. Hogwash.

Posted by Gillett on August 19, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 10:15 a.m.

"Also, on the Georgian conflict.....who attacked who first??? Apparently the MSM is not reporting that Georgian troops fired rockets into South Ossetia first in an attempt to overtake the region."

HEY ITLLDO,

The Georgians did not invade Russia. S. Ossetia is a part of Georgia -- HELLO? The Russians sent troops into Georgia when there was no attack upon them. Sounds creepy that you seem to take the side of the Russians. Did you cry for Saddam Hussein too?

Posted by ringeye on August 19, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are so many "experts" on here giving their expertise as to how dumb, ignorant, etc. etc. that Bush is....What a shame!!Most of you would probably profit by reading The Good Book and how it relates to getting the log out of your own eye. I have said this before and will say it one more time.....I don't care WHO you are, if for 8 years you had the Liberal Media pounding away at you from morning till night, you would not be a popular person...Again, no matter WHO you are!!!! It is just a joke to watch MSNBC and watch as they slay Bush at every opportunity...Others such as ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC follow right along and then the worst culprit might be the NY Times, followed closely by the LA Times....It is amazing that McC is running evenly with BO as we speak. Guess there are a lot more Conservative thinking folks out there than we think, reckon?Thank goodness the Liberals will not have enough force to carry Texas. Just wish those that were here would move to Calif or NY....have a great 08!

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Gillett the people of South Ossetia voted in 1990 to be independent of Georgia and to be part of Russia. They voted in a democratic election that had international monitors and they voted 95 percent to withdraw from Georgia. Their election was denied by the US and the UN. The people of Ossetia hate the Georgians and want Russian protection and will never be a part of Georgia. What ever happend to voting democratically? I wonder if it could have anything to do with the oil and gas pipeline?

So Gillett you must be another GOP war monger. Seems like you would be tired of killing by now. Guess not.

Posted by stamfordite on August 19, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

apricot - you asked me to prove it, and robertwp (thank you) replied. Is that good enough? Now, you prove that Bush was a "C" student. Also, prove that he didn't earn his way into Yale.

Posted by Gillett on August 19, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 11:55 a.m.

"Hey Gillett the people of South Ossetia voted in 1990 to be independent of Georgia and to be part of Russia. They voted in a democratic election that had international monitors and they voted 95 percent to withdraw from Georgia."

Hey Itlldo,

Maybe you don't understand the concept of national sovereignty. I understand about the S. Ossetian "election," however, they are STILL technically Georgians. Russia invaded Georgia, then reneged on their "truce" and pullout. Even the NATO recognizes this and is taking action. What is it about this you can't understand? Oh, I know: it's about Bush, somehow. Always. Pathetic.

No, I have no interest in the Dems or GOP and may vote for Obama, easily. But I have contempt for those who would play cheap, destructive politics on ANY side just for the sake of their own perverted pleasure.

Posted by apricottx on August 19, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stamfordite, did you read the article robertwp linked to? Here is an excerpt regarding their grades, and just so you know under 80 is a C.

"In 1999, The New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years."

Still would have voted for Kerry as I am sick of Bush. I would vote for a dead, bloated dog before I'd vote for Bush.

Posted by apricottx on August 19, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, I know he is (Bush) not running again, its just a statement about how I feel...

robertwp, I only brought up Bush's grades due to the content of the letter to the editor.

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gillett I don't believe anyone who lies on a continual basis. George Bush is a liar and I don't believe a word he or his administration says. What do you not get about a President reeking havoc on the entire world? What do you not get about the democratic election of South Ossetia? Isn't that what this nation is all about? I guess this is my perverted pleasure. In the immortal words of your most beloved President:
"Fool me once shame...on ah me..Fool me twice.....er ah....it means you can't get fooled again"- George Bush

Posted by apricottx on August 19, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stamfordite, here is a link to an article on "legacy" admittance to Ivy league schools and that Bush was a C student with 1206 SAT.

http://media.www.coyotepressonline.co...

However, in fairness, the article also states that Kerry was admitted to Harvard on same "legacy" and did not have the grades either.

Below is an excerpt:

"In one of the more extreme cases, this blatantly biased system resulted in a C student with a 1206 SAT score gaining admission into Yale. The year that student was admitted, the average SAT score for those accepted into Yale was 1386. That's just plain wrong; Yale had no business admitting George W. Bush in 1968.

But when you're a descendant of Franklin Pierce, America's 13th president, and your father is a prominent Yale alum named George H.W. Bush and your grandfather is a former Connecticut Senator named Prescott S. Bush, you're in."

Ta Da!!

Posted by donny on August 19, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The country was in better condition under the Clinton administration than under either Bush.
The current Bush has single handedly destroyed the enconomy and world respect of America.
Russia did what they did because they know for a fact Bush has overloaded his mouth with BS.

Posted by bornnraisd on August 19, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Richard Smallridge... I know this is totally off of the subject and I'm sure I'll hear about it. Are you the Richard Smallridge that went to Cooper High School in the early 90's??

Posted by Gillett on August 19, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 12:56 p.m.

"What do you not get about the democratic election of South Ossetia? Isn't that what this nation is all about?"

This too easy. Fun!

Ossetia's "election" was not a national election -- it was a separatist movement not recognized by the nation. It still remains in Georgia, whereby the Georgian government had every right to quell the separatist movement. Russia should have let the Georgians settle their own affairs. If Texans voted to secede to join Mexico, then Mexico would have no right to enter the US with arms and fight for Texas against the US. Think!

Secondly, why did the Russians go way beyond Ossetia, into Gori, etc., and fight the sovereign nation of Georgia directly? Surely not even you can condone that (or could you)!

Finally, what does this have to do with the President. Nothing. It just gives you (and "donny") a shallow reason to spew hate.

Posted by pcdrs on August 19, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stamfordite, yep, mind-boggling hypocrisy. The bush adm. has damaged our great country, our great government and our world to the extent that it will take generations to repair the damage he has handed us, if ever.

ringeye, pure nonsense, there is no such thing as a "libural" press. It was invented by lying limbo to fool simpleminded folks like you. It worked.

Posted by conservativeclyde on August 19, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not sure where all the people live who think life is so much worse under President Bush. The man stands up for his beliefs...something that is not really politically correct these days. the downturn in the economy, seen more at the national level than in the West Texas Oil Patch, has taken place mostly since the 2006 elections(when UNO WHO gained control of Congress).

Posted by bulldog2 on August 19, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Man, you people need to get a LIFE!!!

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So Gillett, the world sent election monitors to monitor an election by a separatists movement. Is that right? Your right..... your answer is "too easy". So let me get this straight:
1. Georgia never rained down rockets on South Ossetia killing over 2,000 people.
2. Election Monitors were sent to monitor an election that was by a separatist movement.
3. 95 percent of the people didn't vote to succeed from Georgia by a democratic election.
4.Oil and gas didn't have a role in this political mess.

Trolls like you are sent out to spew the right wing talking points and are part of the problem. My opinion is just as important as yours.

This was way too easy.

Posted by Gillett on August 19, 2008 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by itlldo on August 19, 2008

So Gillett, the world sent election monitors to monitor an election by a separatists movement. Is that right? Your right..... your answer is "too easy".........Trolls like you are sent out to spew the right wing talking points and are part of the problem

OK, itlldo, I give. No need in pressing this any further, and since name-calling is in play, I concede. However, I did quite a bit of research into the Ossetian movement and I stand by my comments. The fact that Russia entered and engaged Georgia proper is a serious matter and now the UN (along w/ NATO) is involved.

Finally, I'm really not the right-winger you may think! But I try to be very objective by understanding both sides of issues.

Posted by reaganite on August 19, 2008 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Bush forgot"

You libs keep shrieking that "Bush Lied".

Well, it's real simple, if Bush lied, so did Clinton.

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terro...

But hey, if you libs want to continue to lie to yourselves, what's a lie to the rest of us?

I spent the better half of my military career deployed to the Middle East.

Saddam was in direct violation to the cease fire accord from Desert Storm, but that doesn't matter to you libs.

Saddam was in direct violation to over a dozen UN Security Council Resolutions, but that doesn't matter to you libs.

The onus was on Saddam to prove he didn't have WMD in accordance with those UN Security Council Resolutions, but that doesn't matter to you libs.

No matter what the Clinton Administration said.

Posted by wild_bill on August 19, 2008 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I find most amusing is the Soviet... I mean RUSSIAN attitude towards referendums of independence considering their prior actions during the post-cold war break up of frst the old USSR and later of Yugoslavia. Imagine Putin encouraging others to break away from their countries! How quaint. GWB has a history of mispeaking; Russia of lying and brutally over-running democracies. Oh who to believe?

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While we can quibble about the finer points, George Bush simply has no moral credibility in condemning Russia for its actions in Georgia (with which I do not agree). In a time when people around the world hate Bush and therefore America for bullying and lying, his rebuke of Russia is more infuriating than unbelievable.

Bill lied, Hillary cried.
Bush lied, soldiers died.

Posted by reaganite on August 19, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LibCoC
"Bill lied, Hillary cried."

No US Military died under Clinton's watch, is that you claim?

"George Bush simply has no moral credibility in condemning Russia for its actions in Georgia"

You libs are so predictable. In your world, if someone shoots at you and misses, it's the same as if they never shot at you.

Posted by hspower2003 on August 19, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let us not forget Viet Nam and the fifty thousand plus that died fighting a limited war under the very liberal Democratic Presidents then and that a sorry President Nixon and Ford ended that conflict.

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reaganite - No, that is not my claim. My claim is that Clinton's lies were about his personal conduct, and were within the realm of his personal life. I don't approve of his actions. Bush's lies caused people to die, nations to come into conflict with each other, religious groups to be at odds with each other.

Horse power - You are absolutely correct. What the hell does that have to do with the current discussion?

Posted by reaganite on August 19, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LibCoC
"Bush's lies caused people to die, nations to come into conflict with each other, religious groups to be at odds with each other."

So, in your words, Saddam was not a problem, terrorism didn't exist until Bush got into office? Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the bombings of the US Embassies in Africa, none of that happened until Bush got into office?

Bill Clinton didn't sign the Iraqi Liberation Act and that Saddam was in compliance with all UN Security Council Resolutions? His forces were not in material breach of the Cease Fire of Desert Storm?

Saddam didn't sponsor Abu Nidal (it's a shame he committed suicide by shooting himself multiple times in the head) or Salman Pak?

The Clinton Admin didn't say this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVq...

Gore didn't say this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48X...

Is that what you are saying?

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reaganite - please stick with the current discussion. It doesn't matter whether the things you cite are true or not. Let's talk about Bush's behavior, Bush's lies. Saddam was a problem. So was North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Bush chose to fabricate information about Iraq and invade. Make your points about the shortcomings of other people in a different discussion. Bush lied, soldiers died.

Posted by rannc on August 19, 2008 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spoiled Brats:

President Bush told all of you to shop. Our Military has your back.

You didn't get tried by living in the DC suburbs or walked to get out of Manhatten that day.

We are at war, as President Jefferson saw it against the islamist Barbary Pirates during his day.

It is far past the time that you liberals grow up.

Posted by reaganite on August 19, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LibCoC
"please stick with the current discussion."

Umm, wasn't it you that said this?

"Bush's lies caused people to die, nations to come into conflict with each other, religious groups to be at odds with each other."

Well, the Clinton admin said the same thing. How is that not sticking with the current discussion?

"Bush chose to fabricate information about Iraq and invade."

So, are you claiming that Bill Clinton didn't sign the Iraq Liberation Act into US law?

Is that really what you are saying?

Posted by bphb6 on August 19, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think several of you are missing the real question here. Will the red light cameras really cause more accidents?

lighten up

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Follow me closely here, Reaganite - we are talking about Bush's truthfulness in regard to invading Iraq. Just for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that you are absolutely correct about Clinton. We are not comparing Clinton and Bush, we are talking about Bush. Bush lied, soldiers died.

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Reaganite - I've tried really hard to walk in your shoes, to see where your argument is coming from. I think maybe I finally got there. Yes, they both lied. Yes, Clinton did things that led to soldiers dying. My point is that Clinton made mistakes that led to soldiers dying, but his lies did not. Bush lied about things that led directly to war, to poor international relations, to religious intolerance. I'm not defending Clinton, not denying that he did bad things. But - Bill lied, Hillary cried. Bush lied, soldiers died.

Posted by reaganite on August 19, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LibCoC
" let's just say that you are absolutely correct about Clinton. We are not comparing Clinton and Bush, we are talking about Bush. Bush lied, soldiers died."

No many times you stick your fingers in your ears and chant "I can't hear you". it's simply a matter of fact that the Clinton admin said exactly the same thing.

It's really not my fault that no matter how many times you stomp your feet, it doesn't change the facts.

Is it really so simple for you libs that Clinton didn't actually do anything about it and Bush did?

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An argument is only fun and helpful when there is respect and give-and-take between the two minds. You show neither. You are dogmatic and angry. You get the last word, I'm going to watch the Olympics. You do your beliefs more harm than good, and undermine progress of the democratic process. Do you know Karl Rove?

Posted by reaganite on August 19, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LibCoC
So, in other words, I provided factual links that you simply aren't willing to accept.

Got it.

BTW, you simply don't get that America isn't a democracy.

Posted by pcdrs on August 19, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can bet one of 2 things or both will come up when debating right wingers on any subject. One is religion and the other is the right wing trying to blame Bill Clinton for everything. It will usually take 3 posts before blaming Bill Clinton starts and 5 posts before religion starts. The one thing you can always depend on is the incessant rationalization of the failures and mistakes of the the bushcheney adminstration.

Posted by LibCoC on August 19, 2008 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, Reaganite, I take it back, you don't get the last word yet. You illustrate my point - an argument is no fun without respect and give-and-take. No, you didn't provide factual links that I am not willing to accept. For the purpose of argument, I accept them. I simply invited you to argue the point of the letter. Bush lied and led us to war. You simply have not addressed that issue yet. You are dogmatic and narrow. I find arguing with you to be purposeless. I have obviously provided you with facts, or at least thoughts, which you cannot grasp, so you have to fall back on "Yea but Clinton was worse!" You are your own worst enemy, as is Bush to America.

Posted by robertwp on August 19, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Thank goodness the Liberals will not have enough force to carry Texas."

Tom Delay's gerrymandered map could very well give Texas to Obama.

In another story, the reps still need 4000 volunteers to pull off their convention.

Posted by reaganite on August 20, 2008 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

LibCoC
""Yea but Clinton was worse!""

You really have a reading comprehension problem. I never said anything of the sort.

What I stated (in essence)was that if, in your words, "Bush lied" then so did Clinton, but you won't accept facts when they don't support your position.

" No, you didn't provide factual links that I am not willing to accept. "

How very tolerant of you!

Posted by up_in_here_2 on August 20, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"How a person speaks is not something to ridicule -- many idiots can flow words well while some like Einstein had trouble with them."

But in Bush's instance, it really does show that he is an idiot.

Nice try to link him to Einstein??? You guys really are desperate to save this fool's legacy...

Posted by wild_bill on August 20, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

While y'all take a break from bashing Bush or dragging Bill Clinton's sorry character around... do any of you even care that the Russians invaded and then dug in on the territory of one of our allies on a trumped-up excuse? One of the few countries willing to 'put feet on the ground' in Iraq along side of us has now been invaded by Russia. Where is your outrage for that?

It's blatantly obvious Russia has no interest in diplomacy, democratic sovereignty or fear of the world's rebuke. But most of y'all only seem to be interesated in your same old arguments over which liar is worse.

Posted by GaryBuseysBartender on August 20, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Read my lips: "FIVE MORE MONTHS!"

Posted by pcdrs on August 20, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wild-bill, it's time to change the subject isn't it? You just can't find a subject that doesn't relate to bush failures. Bet you swell with pride when bush scolds Russia for invading another country for no reason. Hypocrisy is alive and well in republicanland.

Posted by whatif on August 21, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is this the beginning of a new cold war?

Posted by blueevo on August 21, 2008 at 12:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess the problem with all the Bush bashers is that they don't like someone who means what he says and don't back down. How many sanctions did Iraq have and how many times did they try to hide the WMD. Search (because the liberal media willnot report it)and you will find that just prior to their ultimatum, Saadam was giving aid to Syria because of a disaster they had (Ha). Turns out it wasn't aid, but chemicals and ingerdients he was getting out of the country so they wouldn't be found. AND, there was evidence of the makings, just not in final form, plus the past history of Saadam not even the liberals can ignore. When Bush stated "we will no longer be on the defensive....any country harbouring terrorists (don't tell me Sadaam and his sons were not terrorists),....if you are with us in the fight against terrorists, then you are with the terrorists....etc...etc, he meant it and stayed true to his word and over half the country was in agreement. What happened? Like the words of Daryl Whorley's song about 9-11, "they took all the footage off the TV...said it was too disturbing...if it was up to me, I'd show it every day..." WE CANNOT FORGET...WE WERE BOMBE...AND BUSH DID NOT STUDDER WHRN HE SAID...SURRENDER OR ELSE!!!!! Which country was not a threat to us? I guess Iran isn't either?

Posted by blueevo on August 21, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And don't let the spelling errors get past the point.

Posted by whatif on August 21, 2008 at 4:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wild_bill, our plate runith over with fighting and wars, we have no more room. All eyes are on how will I pay my bills next month. They could always raise the threat level to get everyone's attention, like they have done many times before. We'll get back to them (Russians) right after we sign the agreement to base our star-wars defence in Poland. That will give the commies time to simmer. Maybe our next president will look into the new Russian leader eyes and see his good soul to. Could just be a misunderstanding and everything will turn out hunkey-dorey.

Posted by pcdrs on August 21, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My god blueevo, thats one of the stupidist rationalization of the incompetant failures and mistakes of bush I've heard in a long time. Everything you listed is straight off the white house talking points and none of them are true. You are as true a beliver as I have seen lately, you apparently will believe anything as long as it isn't true. Everything you listed is the direct opposite of reality.

Posted by kelly_41_2000 on August 22, 2008 at 6:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BTW~ The Clinton "impeachment" was started but not carried out.It was stopped short and never was fully voted on.

Posted by whatuthink on August 22, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Former President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones law suit. The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 50 senators voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

Posted by reaganite on August 22, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Arkansas revoked his license to practice law...

Posted by apricottx on August 23, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

prove it reaganite.

Posted by reaganite on August 23, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

apricottx
"prove it reaganite."
How many links do you want?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10904831/
http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton...
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/0...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3...

Want more?

Posted by wild_bill on August 23, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

whatif, we BETTER be paying attention and so should emperor Putin. As GBB so quaintly put it "Five more months".

Posted by apricottx on August 24, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good links reaganite, but the license was SUSPENDED not REVOKED. Revoked meaning taken away permanently, while suspension is temporary. So your links were good, but your original statement incorrect.

Posted by pcdrs on August 24, 2008 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Say it isn't so, raygun lite giving misleading information. Wow, I didn't see that coming.