Barg,

First off, I meant to tell you, you are about as close to being the "liberal democrat" you say you are as Mother Theresa is to being Osama Bin Laden. You're a republican now, welcome to the Dark Side.

Clinton was hounded for eight fucking years by Ken Starr at the cost of $100 million. To date, $3 million has been spent on an investigation of 9/11, the worst attack ever on US soil, and that is being run by a Bush sycophant. Clinton deserves a fucking medal for having that guy up his ass every day for eight years and having only an extramarital affair with an intern to show for it. Remember, that investigation was for "Whitewater" and had no business encroaching on other aspects of Clinton's life.

Now, you said:

"He wasnt caught jay walking or even drunk driving. He was caught perjuring himself in a federal court. Again he was under oath to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The expectation of the public that all witnesses testify truthfully under oath is paramount to our civilizations rule of law. The expectation that the President of the United States do so is exponentially greater. For the President to break this law which is the basis of our crimal and civil justice system is the ultimate slap in the face to "no man is above the law".


I guess, in your love for all things liberal, you neglected to mention that Clinton was never convicted of anything. The record shows that Clinton faced two articles of impeachmentand was acquitted on both. He was charged with (1) obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case, and (2) providing "perjurious, false and misleading testimony" before Independent Counsel Ken Starr's grand jury. The Senate acquitted Clinton on the perjury charge by a vote of 55 (not guilty) to 45 (guilty). Sixty-seven votes are needed to convict.

Bush, on the other hand, was convicted of driving while intoxicated. It's a matter of public record.

This means that, we can equate the lying that we beleive George Bush is guilty of on the same plane as what you beleive Bill Clinton is guilty of. All that is left is compare the severity of the lies and the adverse affect they have on society.

Let's just toss the DUI thing out the window. Bush was young and he made a mistake. It's in the past and I firmly beleive he doesn't even drink now (not that it matters because I doubt he drives either)

Instead, let's look at these lies and you tell me if they are serious or not.


"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - January 2003, State of the Union Address.

These documents that supported this were known to be forgeries and Bush used the information anyway.


"We just heard the Prime Minister talk about the new report. I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.' -September, 2002, White House Press Conference

"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that neither of the reports cited by Bush in fact exist. Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said, "There's never been a report like that issued from this agency." On the contrary, the IAEA's 1998 report stated, "There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." Gwozdecky disputed Bushs assessment about the satellite photograh, saying that there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions."

LINK


I can go on about several other lies that Bush told, but I think you get the general idea. If you want more, check that link I provided. Bush's lies have directly caused the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 500 American soldiers. Clinton's lie was intended to keep him out of hot water with his wife. I urge you to look past your pre-conceived bias that the Iraq war was the right thing to do and consider the millions of Americans that were swayed by Bush's lies to believe that attacking Iraq was OK.

Now, you never answered me on my question of whether you agreed that Bush's support of Ubekistan, a known tortuous, murderous, regime, was a good thing. I may have missed your reply on that, so forgive me if that is the case.

While you chew on that, tell me if you believe the 60% majority Shia of Iraq, who are now marching in throngs to demand democratic elections, should be allowed to set up their democratically elected Islamic theocracy. Such a government would establish sharia law, which basically strips all rights from women, and would also put the control of the second largest oil reserve on the planet in the hands of an Islamic state. Also consider the prospects of a bloody, extended civil war with the Kurds in the north and the possibility that the new Iraq may become fertile ground for radical islamic terrorists.


-Bam
"who hopes Barg can understand what he supports"
Bamthin Thunderfoot
Forest Stalker of Surefall Glade
Silent Tempest
Bamthin's Profile