Interesting
 

Bush's numbers right now are slightly under where Reagan bottomed out second term. Ask most Americans who was the greatest President of their lifetimes.

Our side isn't bugged by the numbers, we're just explaining them.

Interesting
 

Your side seems a bit worried given their defensiveness lately.

It reminds of the fake interview (starring Martin Short) on SNL: "What? I'm not being defensive! YOU'RE being defensive."

Interesting
 

On Hannity and Colmes last night they played a tape of a speech by Hillary Clinton in 2002 in which she said that:

1) Saddam Hussein had weapons of Mass Destruction

2) He was pursuing a nuclear program

3) The inspector system had broken down

4) Saddam had supported elements of Al Queda.

The speech was a criticism of the Bush administration for not doing anything about these problems.

Classic.

Interesting
 

Good. Let's knock that twit out of the '08 race early.

Interesting
 

LALALALALALALALA. Don't care. The democrats are shit. The republicans are worse. I'm done giving a shit about either of the two parties - both are fucking sellouts. Fuck them. Dirtbags, all of them.

When either:

(1) the real republicans stand up, i.e., the fiscally responsible ones take back their party from the wingnuts, or
(2) a party that represents my interests, i.e. small government, fiscally conservative, socially liberal and non-evangelical appears,

I will start caring again.

Until then, I mock ALL politicians. No balls. Not one of them. People who support these dirtbags are dirtbags, too.

Interesting
 

I could be wrong, but I think that you may not like the answer to this question.

eta: Not only could I be wrong, apparently I was. A quick google search reveals that Reagan pulled ahead after he died -- a 2003 CNN/USA Today poll gave Clinton the lead, but it looks like Reagan won a Gallup one this year. Mea culpa.

Interesting
 

Where did she get her intelligence*?


*not interested in starting a Nature vs. Nurture debate

Interesting
 

Oh, and you watch H&C. You are not capable of objective thought.

Interesting
 

This approach assumes that there was a great President in our lifetime. I'm a little disppointed in you, Hank. One generally doesn't see this sort of sloppy reasoning in your work. Is everything okay at home?

Interesting
 

Bill? He said all of the same, including signing the "take out sadaam law" in the late 90s. Since he never signed a "take out bin Laden" law, we can only assume he saw SH as a greater threat than OBL.

Interesting
 

Oh, you mean all those quotes Fox has been running of Clinton in early '98? The ones before Clinton ordered strikes that took out SH's last remaining WMD capacity?

Interesting
 

I'm not even going to try and explain to you why what you just said is ignorant. For simplicity, just imagine a plant that is bombed. Do you think its contents are pulverized? Bombing alone doesn't destroy the ability, nor the stockpile, certainly not the stockpile.

No, I take pen to paper here today to engage you on a dumber level, so you can understand- IF BILL KNEW HE DESTROYED WHY THE FUCK WOULD HILLARY NOT KNOW IN '02?

I know that didn't "communicate" on a conjugal plane, but they not even talk?

Interesting
 

Um, 4 years had passed between that time, and Hillary had been reading more recent NIE reports?


Sigh. Let's face it, Hank. This is very B-team. Where are the smart people today?

Interesting
 

Penske left.

Interesting
 

When properly medicated, penske was a valuable contributor. But I wasn't really thinking of him.

The Democrat spin meisters have done a very good job of turning black into white. You have to appreciate their skill.

What is annoying, is when the liberals on this board buy the spin. And it gets even more annoying when they expect us to also be duped by the spin.

Lets just clear a few things up.

Clinton lied under Oath.

The Democrat spin meisters have repeated over and over again that the Republicans were upset about Clinton's lies because THEY WERE ABOUT SEX. That is a fabrication. The Republicans were upset because CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH. And he lied about stuff that was directly relevent to the case.

It was the ulimate straw man argument, because the spinmeisters keep saying that it is ridiculous for the Republicans to get upset about Clinton lying about sex. However, it is the classic misdirect becasue the Republicans never cared that he lied about sex. They cared that he lied under oath. You can tell they are being disengenous because when they talk about it they never say "lied under oath about sex". The Democrats will never say it is ridiculous that someone cares that he "lied under oath". They never say it because they know lying under oath is a serious problem. I saw Kerry on TV last night say that all Clinton did was lie about sex. Again: he would never say "lied under oath". Until people on this board start saying he "lied under oath" you know they are full of it when they talk about this issue.

Bush lied

Now when it comes to Weapons of mass destruction, the spin meisters keep repeating Bush lied. They have twisted the idea that Bush misjudged the intelligemnce to Bush lied. They have repeated it so much people believe it. But Bush did not lie. Everyone thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Bush may have made a bad judgement, but there is absolutely no evidence that he lied. But because the spin meisters keep repeating it people have accepted it as true.

Can anyone show me any evidence that the what is say below is not true:

1) Clinton lied UNDER OATH in a federal court proceeding about facts that were directly relevent to the case.

2) There is no evidence that Bush lied when he said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

3) If Bush had lied, it was not under oath, and every president in the twentieth century has lied to the American people. Especially when it comes to national security.

this is why you make the big bucks Spank! In one deft swipe you show all these dims that they're truly misguided. Penske and i have both been trying to do this for years on this very topic, but all our hundreds of posts would not distill down to the power of this one pointed arrow. I bet we don't see SHP or SS post here again for a week, and then they'll dodge this target like they had never raised it.

1) What lie of Clinton's are you talking about? And what federal court proceeding? The Paula Jones case, or the Starr grand jury? These are serious questions.

2) To me, it's not the general "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" line. It's more the innuendo that SH/Iraq had something to do with 9/11. And the 16 words in the State of the Union Address. And the statements by Rummy that "we know where the WMD are." And by Cheney that "there's no doubt" that SH has WMD.

3) Perhaps true. And when it turns out well (FDR), he's forgiven. When it doesn't (LBJ "we won't send American boys to fight for Asian boys" and Nixon "I have a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam") . . .

I'm not a Clinton apologist, but I'll tell you what I think. Clinton lied under oath. Absolutely. People brush it off b/c the substance of his lie was trivial - is that right or wrong? It's very wrong that he lied under oath. However, people didn't really care, since no one got hurt - I think that's how most non-politicians saw it.

However, Bush misled the country into believing that 9/11 = Saddam and that Saddam was an imminent threat to the USA, which he used to support his war in Iraq. People got hurt. MANY people. Iraqis, American soldiers, etc. There is plenty of evidence that demonstrates that this administration intentionally attempted to make a connection b/w Saddam and 9/11, which absolutely disgusts me. It's abhorrent. Exploiting 9/11 to build a case for war is beyond repugnant. It's a slap in the face to this entire country. Is misleading a country into an unnecessary war worse than lying under oath? In my opinion, yes. Every day of the week.

Interesting
 

New.

Board.

Motto.

!!!

"Let's just hope that if they indict [Scooter Libby or Turd Blossom] it won't be for some technicality like lying under oath or obstruction of justice."

-- Kay Bailey Hutchison (R., Tex.)

Interesting
 

This has all the intellectual heft of a Ken Mehlman RNC talking point. RR's lowest numbers weren't in his second term - they were in his first term, after the first midterm election. In his second term,W's numbers are still doing the limbo dance, and there's no indication they will be stopping anytime soon. But that's a moot point anyway - you might as well say that Clinton's lowest numbers were similar to RR's, and ask most Americans who was the greatest President of their lifetimes. It makes no sense at all to conflate W's and RR's numbers because there's no reason why RR's numbers could predict what Bush's will be like.

Hank, do you get your talking points via email, or do you prefer the old-fashioned excitement of a facsimile?

Interesting
 

Why are they relevant then? There'll be a vote.

2. And here are 55 specific instances of W lying about Iraq. There are much more if you care to include the entire administration for which, presumably, he is responsible.

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Ir...George+W.+Bush

For more recent W lies, how about the "America does not torture" whopper. I offer evidence to the contrary here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...abuse-pics.htm

Clinton lied under oath. That is wrong. But the only reason we heard about it is because he was President. Had he been a private citizen, it wouldn't have even made the local news. What's more, he lied in a deposition for a lawsuit brought by a woman who had been manipulated by Clinton's political enemies. The underlying purpose of the lawsuit was not to vindicate the rights of Paula Jones, but to embarrass a sitting president. People regard it as a lie about a private affair made public. It's titillating, but the direct consequences of the lie had little effect beyond the parties involved. If you cannot see a qualitative difference, you're willfully blind or an idiot.

Huh? Sexual harassment turned out to be no big deal? Can you still bring these suits?

Interesting
 

Your point on polls is of course correct, after all -- if we had a well-educated and informed electorate (or if Clinton had kept his dick in his pants), we'd be in the second term of the Gore administration.

Still, you do sound a lot like those from the other side railing against the media and polls and propogating the "Bush's big lie" theory back when GWB was riding high. Are you completely right now, while they were completely wrong then?

The success of the "Kennedy/Dean" line and tactic pales in comparison to the strength and success of the Bush Administrations' media efforts until a lot of things started going wrong (or at least, not as people expected). The tactics are close to identical. That's life.

S_A_M

Interesting
 

Yeah, like she listens to Bill.

S_A_M

Interesting
 

Good thinking, Hank.

Didn't he sign an EO authorizing the termination of bin Laden extreme prejudice? You don't put that kind of stuff before the Congress.

P.S. You know, I used to think that I was a brave and patriotic American before Vice-President Cheney set me straight.

S_A_M

Oh, come now. The Republicans were upset with Clinton's lies because they were Clinton's, and the Democrats are upset with Bush's because they are Bush's. For the most part, the attacks are purely partisan.

I note, however, that many Presidents have gotten in trouble for misleading the American people. Nixon and Cambodia is one well documented example, but there are many others.

Clinton's sex scandal effectively hamstringed his second term. Without it, there is a very good chance the Republicans would have never been able to win the 2000 election. There is more reason for the Democrats to be upset with Clinton than the Republicans, but, of course, the Republicans are still enjoying beating the dead horse.

But on both scores, who really cares? Perhaps the only thing sillier than making a big deal out of what Bush said to the American people four years ago is getting upset about what Clinton said to a court ten years ago - and I usually ancient history.

More Ancient History
 

By the way, I'm still really upset about that Cleveland guy. Can you believe he fathered a child out of wedlock?

Or, as one of my party's attack dogs said, "Ma, Ma, Where's Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha!"

More Ancient History
 

Bilmore gets this faraway look in his eye whenever he hears that one. Fond memories or something.

Interesting
 

Not today:

I'm guessing that Senator Stevens will still get his bridge to nowhere.

I saw a commercial this morning for a service that helps seniors figure out the clusterfuck that is Medicare Part D. I guess the good news is healthcare regulatory attorneys will be in high demand.

And this article on the Porn Hearings just makes me sad.

Though the fact that the porn hearings are headed by Sen. Brownback makes me laugh a little.

I'm guessing brownbacking can produce a bunch of santorum.

eta that article is full of great names. For the record, "Rodney Smolla" would NOT be a good porn name.

And an expert from BYU? Yeah, that's credible. And throw in the author who thinks I have to spend 30 minutes explaining how I've done all my chores before I can fuck my wife? Excellent use of our limited resources, Senator Brownback.

Interesting
 

Well the vote is the poll that really counts. But around election times poll matters because the politicians want to change their poll numbers so they can win. But right now the next election is millions of years away (in political time) so the polls are irrelevent.

If a Republican had lied under oath, especially in the way Clinton did the Republicans would have forced him to resign. Just the same way Livingston was forced to resign. If Bush I had done what Clinton did he would have had no Republican support.

I don't think the anger at what Clinton did as far as the Lewinsky stuff was partisan on the Republican's part. However, the Republican's were partisan when it came to Clinton attacking Serbia and his bombing of Afghanistan. But the attacks on Bush about Iraq are purely partisan.

It angers people but is really just the left screaming and the media giving it credence when they shouldn't. Without watergate the bombing of Cambodia would have been a non issue.

I think the Dems wanted to lynch Clinton. But what happened was, because of the strong economy and Clinton's spinners, the public didn't want Clinton to go. So the Dems had to defend him. If the economy had sucked the Dems would have dumped Clinton like a bad habit, Gore would have replaced him and Gore would still be in office.

It comes up because liberals keep saying that "Clinton lies didn't cause any deaths". As if there was any way that Bush was not going into Iraq.

The anger about Bush lying is being brought up all the time. And the media is buying it. So it is relevent. The Democrat spinners are making it relevent.

I do not think that a president should be allowed to be sued during his tenure in office. However, the Supreme Court disagrees with me. The courts decided that Monicas case should go foward. When Clinton was being deposed it was special because the judge was right there on hand to determine what was relevent. He was directed to answer questions that he lied about. Did you have sex? Where you alone with her? Did you have sexual contact?

As a lawyer, you should know that the only issue is was the case determined valid by the court at the time and were the questions relevent during the case. Just because you think a court case is irrelevent does not mean that you don't have to tell the truth. You can't claim that something was not perjury later because a case was later dismissed. The only issue under perjury was the action valid at that time.

Initially in sexual harassment cases it was ruled that the defendants sexual activities with other employees was irrelevent. However, that changed because feminists argued that it was important to be able to ask the defendent about other sexual relations with employees to discover other cases of sexual harassment and to determine a pattern.

That is why Clintons sexual relations with other employees was relevent in his case.

If you don't think people felt freer to lie under oath after what happened with Clinton, you are a moron. If you think more employers didn't lie in sexual harassment suits after the Clinton case you are a moron.

If Clinton had been removed form office for lying under oath it would have greatly helped our legal system. People would be much more inclined to tell the truth - because you could always say - even the president got convicted of perjury so don't lie.

A great opporunity was missed to show that no man is above the law and that perjury is a serios crime. Why was this opportunity lost? Because of short sighted partisanship on the behalf of moronic Dems.

Interesting
 

I disagree with that as well. Poll numbers are constant indicators of whether the populace is happy with the leadership. Why do you thing the mod. republicans are joining with dems. on the budget? They're distancing from Bush.

Clinton was the master of poling the electorate. Better even than "Diamond" Joe Quimby.

Interesting
 

And you think that markets are an efficient way of allocating goods and resources?

Are you going to make us go through this entire list again, or are you just hoping that, by throwing fifteen misstatements in a row, you'll tire us and we'll concede? So, to just take this one, the sixteen words said that the Brits believed that Iraq was looking for yellowcake, and they still stand by that, and Wilson reported to the CIA when he got back with info that not only didn't contradict that, it supported it.

Go here unless this is all too painful.