addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

"New York Philosophy" Message Board › The World-Famous Political Thread

The World-Famous Political Thread

A former member
Post #: 141

What both of you just mentioned is your trying to blame someone else for someone's else's actions.

In October 2002, Congress (both houses) overwhelmingly approved the use of force against Iraq. Major Democrat leaders pushed for the bill's passage, including Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Reid, Rockefeller, etc.

And, as was revealed last week in the press, Hillary Clinton did not even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the vote.

I don't mind anyone criticizing Bush for errors in the execution of the war (I am first in line for that!). But the Democrats play the "Bush lied, people died" canard and the "Bush's war" canard, when they overwhelmingly supported the decision to go to war in 2002. That is the shameless hypocrisy I am pointing out here.

I wonder when the last time was that Democrats were actually criticized in the press for or were even phased by an allegation of hypocrisy :-]
A former member
Post #: 288

What both of you just mentioned is your trying to blame someone else for someone's else's actions.

In October 2002, Congress (both houses) overwhelmingly approved the use of force against Iraq. Major Democrat leaders pushed for the bill's passage, including Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Reid, Rockefeller, etc.

And, as was revealed last week in the press, Hillary Clinton did not even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the vote.

I don't mind anyone criticizing Bush for errors in the execution of the war (I am first in line for that!). But the Democrats play the "Bush lied, people died" canard and the "Bush's war" canard, when they overwhelmingly supported the decision to go to war in 2002. That is the shameless hypocrisy I am pointing out here.

I wonder when the last time was that Democrats were actually criticized in the press for or were even phased by an allegation of hypocrisy :-]

But he is president though. He should be able to know how to tell fact from fiction. He has mega responsibility.

Also one time one person said this that they have us seeing things as Republican and Democrat. That's very bad in my book.
John
broughton
New York, NY
Post #: 168

But he is president though. He should be able to know how to tell fact from fiction. He has mega responsibility.

Two points:

first, about WMD's in Iraq: Britain, France, Russia, the UN, the US, Clinton, leading Democrats, Saddam's own generals, etc ALL BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs. How should Bush tell fact from fiction (your words!) when all of the above reached the same conclusion?

second, okay, let's say Bush should have known better. The argument here is that Democrats voted for the war in large numbers. Maybe Bush was wrong (I don't think so - diff subject), but then Democrats have NO BASIS AT ALL for making accusations that he was wrong, when they agreed with his assessment.

That is the main point! Not that Bush was right or wrong, but that Democrats wholeheartedly agreed that the war was justified, and are now trying to rewrite history.
A former member
Post #: 289
Two points:

first, about WMD's in Iraq: Britain, France, Russia, the UN, the US, Clinton, leading Democrats, Saddam's own generals, etc ALL BELIEVED Saddam had WMDs. How should Bush tell fact from fiction (your words!) when all of the above reached the same conclusion? (quote)

It's 4 years later and he still doesn't?


second, okay, let's say Bush should have known better. The argument here is that Democrats voted for the war in large numbers. Maybe Bush was wrong (I don't think so - diff subject), but then Democrats have NO BASIS AT ALL for making accusations that he was wrong, when they agreed with his assessment.

That is the main point! Not that Bush was right or wrong, but that Democrats wholeheartedly agreed that the war was justified, and are now trying to rewrite history.
Let's just agree there's alot of hypocrisy from both sides.
A former member
Post #: 147
Let's just agree there's alot of hypocrisy from both sides.
This is both incorrect and unfair.

Affairs of State and making connected decisions, taking positions and seeingthem through are not matters of egotistical bloody mindedness.

There is a diametrical difference between those without responsibility and those that have been elected to act.

And this is the difference between the critics of Prez. Bush and the Prez.

To allege and prove hypocricy is serious and would amount to high crimes and misdemeanors. These are impeachable offences.

A Prez. can make error, arriving at the incorrect or less than ideal conclusion or solution is not a midemeanor or a crime.

Once policy is implemented it cannot be stopped or changed without equal reactions - positive or negative. And policy once implemented is like a very large oil tanker - it requires miles to stop or turn.

This is why a Prez. is given such leeway and benefit of the doubt.

I hope you understand why your allegation and those of the many critics and even the attitude of most of the American people, if polls are to be believed, cannot be acted upon as if one changes one's mind about going out for dinner.
A former member
Post #: 292
This is both incorrect and unfair.(quote)

I didn't know trying to prosecute Pres.Clinton for an extra marital affair was an impeachable offense (as in someone was trying to uphold the law).

Affairs of State and making connected decisions, taking positions and seeingthem through are not matters of egotistical bloody mindedness.(quote)

It is egotistical bloody mindedness when you have a President who claimed something ,it wasn't true and we are still there 4 years later. I guess 3,000 still isn't enough for himangry.

There is a diametrical difference between those without responsibility and those that have been elected to act. (quote)

Your worried about people who bear no responsibility I worry about our soldiers and the people who do bear responsibility towards it.




A Prez. can make error, arriving at the incorrect or less than ideal conclusion or solution is not a midemeanor or a crime. (quote)

That's where we differ. You say he didn't know what he was doing I say he knew more than what he was doing.

Once policy is implemented it cannot be stopped or changed without equal reactions - positive or negative. And policy once implemented is like a very large oil tanker - it requires miles to stop or turn.(quote)

It's easy it's called putting on the breaks it works in any plan as well.
A former member
Post #: 151
This is both incorrect and unfair.(quote)

I didn't know trying to prosecute Pres.Clinton for an extra marital affair was an impeachable offense (as in someone was trying to uphold the law).

D-J: It wasn't and ultimately it failed.

A Prez. can make error, arriving at the incorrect or less than ideal conclusion or solution is not a midemeanor or a crime. (quote)

That's where we differ. You say he didn't know what he was doing I say he knew more than what he was doing.

DJ: I said nothing of the sort.
A former member
Post #: 293
A Prez. can make error, arriving at the incorrect or less than ideal conclusion or solution is not a midemeanor or a crime. (quote)

That's where we differ. You say he didn't know what he was doing I say he knew more than what he was doing.

DJ: I said nothing of the sort.

The minute you can even label it as an error that's what your saying.
A former member
Post #: 153
A Prez. can make error, arriving at the incorrect or less than ideal conclusion or solution is not a midemeanor or a crime. (quote)

That's where we differ. You say he didn't know what he was doing I say he knew more than what he was doing.

DJ: I said nothing of the sort.


The minute you can even label it as an error that's what your saying.
Error and claiming ignorance is not the same.
A former member
Post #: 296
Error and claiming ignorance is not the same.
It can be.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy