<p>
</p>
<p>For some of us the nausea is just beginning (at least SNL gets it!):</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH49pKxKWes[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH49pKxKWes</a></p>
<p>I keep wondering who Bush is representing at this point? The American people’s wishes? They spoke loudly in the recent elections and in polls about the war and his plans. The Republicans? Even many of them are not with him on this. Isn’t he supposed to be representing someone other than himself? 
</p>
<p>we intend to stay away from the TV at all costs.
Clinton was his own WMD - Bush’s WMD story has dragged us into a mess that will go on for decades. Too many young Americans dead there.</p>
<p>As for Clinton lying - he didn’t think he was lying. I don’t think Bush thinks he was lying about WMD even though it was clear there was no proof. </p>
<p>Can’t we go find someone to lead the country, this time around?</p>
<p>I will not watch because I start to laugh as soon as I see his image. I have seen so many excellent caricatures of him (Leno, SNL, etc.) that it has gotten difficult for me to determine which one is actually Dubya. Hmmm. Clinton lying about sex between consenting adults-that really affected the country by causing countless soldiers to give up their lives. Oh wait, that was Dubya’s blatant lies. My first “political statement” on CC. I couldn’t help myself. I will duck as it begins to fly.</p>
<p>“Clinton’s death toll doesn’t negate Bush’s rising one. Both are beyond inexcusable.”</p>
<p>There is never a good excuse for casualties. However, is there a doubt that the same people who love to lament the death toll of Americans in Iraq were a LOT less vocal when our government killed innocents by the hundreds of thousand? Should we not remember how POPULAR the Iraqi conflict was when we lobbed missiles from a safe distance into Baghdad? The same group of hypocritical omniscients would have wildly applauded military actions that reduced Baghdad into a small pile of stones and sand … as long as it is far from our country and does not conflict with our discussions about 401K plans and ever rising stock market at the local Starbucks. </p>
<p>We know the price of making an incorrect decision; we’ll never know the price of the abject failure of making important decisions or ignoring a growing threat. We do, however, how costly the first installment was on 9-11.</p>
<p>I stand unconvicted by the above.</p>
<p>I’ve scheduled a squash game, and am then cooking lasagna. Big involved process - I won’t miss the speech in the least.</p>
<p>I think the Prez would do well to name Lewinsky Secretary of State; it would clearly improve the U.S. international image after the General who couldn’t shoot straight, and Madame Mendaciousness, and the other one who said the U.S. murder of half a million children “was worth it”.</p>
<p>Xiggi…I don’t usually post on political threads…but I can’t help myself…what did the Iraq war have to do with 9-11? The terrorists responsible for 9-11 were not the Iraqis. Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq do not seem to be related to 9-11, but the timing worked in his favor.</p>
<p>Also, you say “we know the price of making an incorrect decision.” If that is so and this was deemed incorrect and the American people want out (a big part behind recent elections), then time to cut those losses for the incorrect decision…not do MORE of that incorrect decision that leads to no solution.</p>
<p>
No way. Of course he knew he was lying.</p>
<p>
No matter who’s elected next time there’ll probably be about half the country who will disagree with the individual.</p>
<p>Everyone be quite…it’s 9:07 and the pres is about to tee-off.</p>
<p>…I hope the speech has a happy ending.</p>
<p>Hey! Bush does NOT lie!!! He simply “misunderestimates” stuff!!!</p>
<p>
Well, I guess that would be an improvement over the 70% who disagree with W.</p>
<p>If you all insist on arguing the same politics over again I simply must ask each of you to recycle your electrons used in the effort.</p>
<p>It’s only fitting. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad: You crack me up. You’re harboring so much bitterness about Clinton’s lies (and they were clearly lies) about his statements about Lewinsky, but you quibble about whether or not Bush misled the nation into war. He, and his administration, clearly did. They clearly cooked the books about the metal tubes. They said they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were – and they didn’t. Because there weren’t. They took statements that were hedged and cautious by CIA statements and in the category of “possible, but not likely” and posited them as certain. The big problem with the Iraq war is two-fold: 1) it was a strategically stupid war. It promised to destabilize a majority Shi-ite country in the neighborhood where a consistent threat has been another country called Iran (you know, the country that took hostages in 1979) 2) it was undertaken without a realistic projection of what it would take and the sacrifices it would require. Bush is to be blamed for the loss of support he has suffered for this war, ‘cause he never oversaw a debate about the true pro’s and con’s of this policy from the outset and he lied about its necessity. Both Republican and Democratic Senators and Congressmen have legitimate claims to say that they were wrongly led to vote in support of this war. This one falls squarely on Bush’ shoulders.</p>
<p>Oh, and xiggi, yes, Clinton presided over the deaths of many Iraqis during the embargo, following up the policy of Bush Sr… However, now Americans are dying for a lost cause, and many more Iraqis are dying at a much faster pace. Protest the death that is occurring right now. Why are you harping on deaths that were effectively spurred by Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait?</p>
<p>BedHead:
I’m glad I was able to humor you. btw - I only spoke of ‘lies’ - not leadership. Please don’t read any more into my words than are actually there.</p>
<p>Well - the speech is starting so I better pay attention to it…</p>
<p>Please remember some ‘funny’ lines.</p>
<p>^^ Ha - I imagine there’ll be some.</p>
<p>george bush and words…never a pretty sight.</p>
<p>Regarding half the country disagreeing with the next president, weenie quipped:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL…so true.
Which makes me really wonder how BUSH has taken this latest tact, given that the majority do not support it!</p>
<p>^^ It’s a fine quip but we all know that the approval rate hasn’t always been what it is now. The war in Iraq isn’t going well so of course the numbers will be down. Who would have expected otherwise? It’s hard to predict how the next president will do other than my rough approximation which is a starting point for them. They’ll likely have their ups and downs and will hopefully end up with a higher rating than Bush currently has.</p>
<p>omg… subway hero gets an extension on his 15 minutes!</p>
<p>Did anyone notice McCain’s winking? Or was his left eye just twitching wildly? Very odd.</p>