ImGod

You have been watching too much Fox. Bold and won't automatically make you right.

You have a valid point. However, it's not liberal or conservative, just today's politics. All that's left in Washington is mud and image.

How ironic it would be for the Republican Party to complain about a campaign of presidential character assassination.

It would all be funny if we didn't have to live here.

lpetrich

As to the Democrats "lying", they were really being cowards, being unwilling to challenge the President on this issue.

And as to the Bushies being liars, I'm not sure I'd go that far -- at this time.

It seems to me that the Democrats have become the Mensheviks of American politics, cringing in fear of the Bolsheviks of American politics.

Radcliffe Emerson

I'll go on record as saying I don't think there are too many major differences anymore between Democrats and Republicans. I find both parties to be corrupt and dishonest.

Ron Garrett

Quoting from the head of the Southern Democracy Center at John Edwards 50th birthday bash and fund raiser as spoken to the Senator, "You bought it and we didn't. A lot of us didn't." Analysts within the intelligence community are still complaining that the Bush team picked the intel and analysis that supported their predetermined course and ignored the rest. Very few in the House and Senate can honestly say they did anything more than stick their wet finger in the air to decide what to do. Neither the House nor the Senate Intel committees were presented with any conclusive data. In point of fact when the DIA analysts said there was no hard evidence a year ago their assessment was rejected and three months later their appointee boss signed off on an NSC assessment that asserted the opposite, and it's already clear the full DIA report from last year will never see the light of day.

Whether they lacked the courage to face down the war frenzy, whether they too have been bought by big oil, or whether they were just plain stupid, Democrats and Republicans alike lined up to send American troops to kill or be killed on the basis of a national security threat that did not exist. The evidence so far is that the administration, as per Paul Wolfowitz's own admission, beat the imminent danger drum because they knew it would work, but they also knew it was bullshit. They knew before the State of the Union that the uranium from Niger tale was bogus. They knew the aluminum tubes were for artillery rockets, not centrifuges. They claimed they knew right where those WMDs were located. They trusted in our stupidity and the gutlessness of our representatives and they took the oil fields.

I'm backing a man who had the balls to oppose all this: Howard Dean.

Tristan Scott

I think the opposite is true.

I don't think there should be too many major differences between the parties, but there are.

August Spies

I read the original article this was from in right wing news. That article and this thread is just more evidence that conservatives are idiots. Lets review this:

1. most of the those quotes are from before the weapons inspectors were let back in. They are clearly based on speculation.

2. Some of those people aren't even democrats. Chirac is a member of the CONSERVATIVE party for christ's sake

3. None of those quotes are NEARLY as damning as the quotes we have for Bush. All of those quotes are saying there is a possible threat from Saddam. Bush claimed to have exact knowledge of Saddams chemical and biological weapons.

4. These people were not privy to the information Bush had... aka they were just following the Bush administrations lead. If I hear the Bush administration say Saddam has weapons and I repeat this at a bar it doesn't make me a liar. It makes me wrong. If Bush fabricates information and presents this fake information to the public and the world he it makes him A LIAR.

In fact it makes him guilty of TREASON.

August Spies

MegaDave: No offense but try acutally using that lump of grey mush before posting.

Last time I checked Dick Gephardt did not have a private team of investigators working in Iraq. Last time I checked Ted Kennedy wasn't privy to all of the CIAs findings.

the Bush administration was the one in the position of knowledge here. They are the ones that should be held accountable if it turns out they were lying.

If little Billy knows that little Susy didn't cheat on her math test but he goes around telling everyone that she did and then little Mary and little Frank repeat what they heard from Billy are they all in the same boat? NO! clearly Billy is the one that should be held most responsible.



sorry jack but thinking he might have WMD and wanting to go to war are TWO SEPERATE ISSUES. It is not hypocritical to not want our war but dislike saddam.

geez, where do you people come from?

August Spies

no... no they don't. If Bush really lied about these things he should be impeached for treason. However. tthe other "camp" did not lead a nation into a war based on these claims. The other side did not present these claims to the U.N.

And lastly the other camp did not acutally lie (if these were lies of course). THe other camp may have exagerated but none of those quotes talk about knowing for a fact that Saddam currently has X or Y. THere are many quotes from the Bush administration that say such.

But lying about the reasons for war to the american public and the U.N. is impeachable... its called TREASON.

August Spies

last point:

You think this article would at least use up to date quotes. Lets see what Scott Ritter said in 2002 instead of 1998

Kinross

hyperbole much