PDA

View Full Version : Boehner on 60 minutes



Marvin S
12-14-2010, 05:40 PM
I'm surprised that some of the progressives on this forum didn't comment on the future Speaker's appearance on 60 minutes.


Strikes me as a fairly normal guy, somewhat emotional, who is not ashamed of his family & his roots. I particularly liked the part about cutting all House budgets by 5%. A good start :D, but more is needed in the way of cutting.

BonMallari
12-14-2010, 06:01 PM
Hey Dick Vermeil is a crier and he won a Super Bowl

dnf777
12-14-2010, 06:09 PM
Thats because progressives and independents aren't as bloodthirsty politically as conservatives have shown to be.

So the guy blows bubbles? Probably just emotionally labile. Perhaps he just came off a bad round of golf? No big deal.

subroc
12-14-2010, 06:55 PM
60 minutes is still on the air?

BonMallari
12-14-2010, 07:25 PM
Thats because progressives and independents aren't as bloodthirsty politically as conservatives have shown to be.

So the guy blows bubbles? Probably just emotionally labile. Perhaps he just came off a bad round of golf? No big deal.

have you got a scorecard....its sharks feeding on sharks...its part of the dance they ALL do in Washington DC its not exclusive to any one party...and in the end its usually the American public that that feels the collateral damage

road kill
12-14-2010, 07:31 PM
Thats because progressives and independents aren't as bloodthirsty politically as conservatives have shown to be.So the guy blows bubbles? Probably just emotionally labile. Perhaps he just came off a bad round of golf? No big deal.

Yeah, I can't beleive how fair they have been with Bush!!:D


What a crock of shat!!


RK

Franco
12-14-2010, 08:58 PM
I'm surprised that some of the progressives on this forum didn't comment on the future Speaker's appearance on 60 minutes.


Strikes me as a fairly normal guy, somewhat emotional, who is not ashamed of his family & his roots. I particularly liked the part about cutting all House budgets by 5%. A good start :D, but more is needed in the way of cutting.

Why not cut the house budget 50%? Plus, do away with thier pensions and Cadillac Health Care plans!

While they are at it, they could dissolve the Departments of Energy and Education.

End the wars in A'stan and Iraq. If they need protection, there are companies they can hire to do what they should be doing themselves.

That would be a good start as we have seen we can't afford our big government.

YardleyLabs
12-14-2010, 09:22 PM
Yeah, I can't beleive how fair they have been with Bush!!:D


What a crock of shat!!


RK
Fairness to Bush was that no one initiated impeachment proceedings in the last two years of his presidency and no one pursued criminal prosecutions after he left (despite a lot of pressure to do so). I suspect that had Bush been a Democrat with Republicans taking over in 2006, that we would have seen both. For the last 20 years, Democrats have played pussy cats to the Republicans' lions when it comes to pure vindictiveness.

sandyg
12-14-2010, 10:37 PM
Fairness to Bush was that no one initiated impeachment proceedings in the last two years of his presidency and no one pursued criminal prosecutions after he left (despite a lot of pressure to do so). I suspect that had Bush been a Democrat with Republicans taking over in 2006, that we would have seen both. For the last 20 years, Democrats have played pussy cats to the Republicans' lions when it comes to pure vindictiveness.

Yeah, you guys are saints. Keep moving, nothing to see here.

LMAO!!!

M&K's Retrievers
12-14-2010, 11:00 PM
Fairness to Bush was that no one initiated impeachment proceedings in the last two years of his presidency and no one pursued criminal prosecutions after he left (despite a lot of pressure to do so). I suspect that had Bush been a Democrat with Republicans taking over in 2006, that we would have seen both. For the last 20 years, Democrats have played pussy cats to the Republicans' lions when it comes to pure vindictiveness.

Puleeze!!!

depittydawg
12-14-2010, 11:06 PM
Yeah, I can't beleive how fair they have been with Bush!!:D


What a crock of shat!!


RK

Hey, Bush is still a free man walking the streets. That's more than fair.

road kill
12-15-2010, 06:32 AM
Fairness to Bush was that no one initiated impeachment proceedings in the last two years of his presidency and no one pursued criminal prosecutions after he left (despite a lot of pressure to do so). I suspect that had Bush been a Democrat with Republicans taking over in 2006, that we would have seen both. For the last 20 years, Democrats have played pussy cats to the Republicans' lions when it comes to pure vindictiveness.

An even BIGGER crock of shat!!

But then, you are the king.:D



RK

Buzz
12-15-2010, 09:27 AM
Interesting take on Pelosi:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2631044/posts

david gibson
12-15-2010, 10:09 AM
Interesting take on Pelosi:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2631044/posts

some nice little gems in the comments section... :p

ducknwork
12-15-2010, 11:54 AM
some nice little gems in the comments section... :p

This is made me laugh pretty hard...


(Article title--Is Pelosi Jealous Boehner Can Cry?)

comment--
No, but she is really PO’d that he can close his eyes.

dnf777
12-15-2010, 12:02 PM
An even BIGGER crock of shat!!

But then, you are the king.:D

RK

RK,

I'm just curious. What would you response be if Obama and Biden PROMISED that we would see justification for invading, lets say...Turkmenistan...that there was a threat and a link to recent terrorist activities, and that the next warning sign could be a mushroom cloud over America. We go. Then after several hundred troops are carried home in caskets, it was all found to be not true. And then Obama and Biden said, "but we really really thought it was true!" And then say, Obama was seen laughing and joking at a press club dinner about his erroneous justifications for war, while our boys and girls were still actively in battle?

Honestly.

what would your response be?

Would you give him a "pass" and chalk it up to good effort, but an honest mistake?


Honestly?

Gibson? How 'bout you?

Be honest, now.

road kill
12-15-2010, 12:54 PM
RK,

I'm just curious. What would you response be if Obama and Biden PROMISED that we would see justification for invading, lets say...Turkmenistan...that there was a threat and a link to recent terrorist activities, and that the next warning sign could be a mushroom cloud over America. We go. Then after several hundred troops are carried home in caskets, it was all found to be not true. And then Obama and Biden said, "but we really really thought it was true!" And then say, Obama was seen laughing and joking at a press club dinner about his erroneous justifications for war, while our boys and girls were still actively in battle?

Honestly.

what would your response be?

Would you give him a "pass" and chalk it up to good effort, but an honest mistake?


Honestly?

Gibson? How 'bout you?

Be honest, now.

If there were grounds for impeachment, he would have been impeached.
If there ARE grounds for any criminal prosecutions, he would be indicted.
Yardley's and RP's and your wishes don't equal fact.

Just because it FEELS good to say that crap doesn't make it right.


RK

sandyg
12-15-2010, 01:36 PM
$hit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first.

Oh wait, the three libs already played this game because they're full of it!!!

david gibson
12-15-2010, 02:24 PM
RK,

I'm just curious. What would you response be if Obama and Biden PROMISED that we would see justification for invading, lets say...Turkmenistan...that there was a threat and a link to recent terrorist activities, and that the next warning sign could be a mushroom cloud over America. We go. Then after several hundred troops are carried home in caskets, it was all found to be not true. And then Obama and Biden said, "but we really really thought it was true!" And then say, Obama was seen laughing and joking at a press club dinner about his erroneous justifications for war, while our boys and girls were still actively in battle?

Honestly.

what would your response be?

Would you give him a "pass" and chalk it up to good effort, but an honest mistake?


Honestly?

Gibson? How 'bout you?

Be honest, now.

if our intelligence supported it and even the opposing party lawmakers agreed - that is until it was politically advantageous to disagree - - just like in Iraq's case, i would have to go along with it. and again, all sides agreed until it was not popular to agree. criminal or impeachable of course not. too many democrats agreed at too many points along the way. everyone knew he had wmd at one time and there was no evidence he got rid of it in accordance with UN rules. all evidence points to syria.

as far as joking at a press club meeting, tasteless maybe. people in stressful jobs need a release sometimes, often in a macabre manner. you went to med school, i have many doctor friends, i have heard what goes on in cadaver rooms. i imagine most med schools are similar.

but really, why would saddam get rid of the wmd and hide that fact from the UN and refuse them entry? you would think he would welcome the opportunity to show the world he was a good guy and could be trusted, especially with a huge NATO force headed his way.



http://frederatorblogs.com/channel_frederator/files/2009/06/beating_a_dead_horse1.gif

road kill
12-15-2010, 02:29 PM
$hit in one hand and wish in the other and see which gets filled first.

Oh wait, the three libs already played this game because they're full of it!!!


OK Bad Santa!!!!;-)


RK

dnf777
12-15-2010, 02:38 PM
as far as joking at a press club meeting, tasteless maybe. people in stressful jobs need a release sometimes, often in a macabre manner. you went to med school, i have many doctor friends, i have heard what goes on in cadaver rooms. i imagine most med schools are similar



http://frederatorblogs.com/channel_frederator/files/2009/06/beating_a_dead_horse1.gif


I can tell you what went on in our cadaver room, if by that, you mean the anatomy lab. Our course director, Dr. Richard Schmidt told us that if any of us in any way disrespect or deface a cadever, it will be the quickest way out of medical school. That is a private room, by the way. The press corps dinner was viewed my a huge audience, including the families of deceased and actively serving military.

Tasteless? Maybe?

How about disrespectful and disgraceful.

As for the dead-horse cartoon, I agree. If our president and AG are too ball-less to investigate and pursue this matter....why bother.

road kill
12-15-2010, 02:59 PM
I can tell you what went on in our cadaver room, if by that, you mean the anatomy lab. Our course director, Dr. Richard Schmidt told us that if any of us in any way disrespect or deface a cadever, it will be the quickest way out of medical school. That is a private room, by the way. The press corps dinner was viewed my a huge audience, including the families of deceased and actively serving military.

Tasteless? Maybe?

How about disrespectful and disgraceful.

As for the dead-horse cartoon, I agree. If our president and AG are too ball-less to investigate and pursue this matter....why bother.

If you know something they don't, perhaps you should call them right away!!!:D



RK

david gibson
12-15-2010, 04:23 PM
As for the dead-horse cartoon, I agree. If our president and AG are too ball-less to investigate and pursue this matter....why bother.

i meant that for you guys, for continually bringing this up. maybe, just maybe, your children wont blame Bush for everything 40 yrs from now.

road kill
12-15-2010, 04:24 PM
i meant that for you guys, for continually bringing this up. maybe, just maybe, your children wont blame Bush for everything 40 yrs from now.


Nope.....they'll be blaming Romney & Palin!!!:D


RK

dnf777
12-15-2010, 05:36 PM
i meant that for you guys, for continually bringing this up. maybe, just maybe, your children wont blame Bush for everything 40 yrs from now.

Allright. We'll just let it slide. who cares about accountability for one's mistakes anyway?

but just remember, a little bj rose to the level of impeachment. Launching an unjust war ain't no big thang! At least your side is consistent. :rolleyes:

sandyg
12-15-2010, 10:16 PM
Allright. We'll just let it slide. who cares about accountability for one's mistakes anyway?

but just remember, a little bj rose to the level of impeachment. Launching an unjust war ain't no big thang! At least your side is consistent. :rolleyes:

The impeachment wasn't about the sex with an intern, it was the fact that he lied about it.

dnf777
12-16-2010, 05:48 AM
The impeachment wasn't about the sex with an intern, it was the fact that he lied about it.

Yes. Huge crime. Impeachment level, no doubt.

His mistake was answering the question in the first place. Much like when his successor was asked if he snorted cocaine, Clinton should have just said, "next question".

Hey, after what my Roth did under Clinton, I wished he'd have gotten one everyday! I'm almost back to where I was then.

road kill
12-16-2010, 06:46 AM
Yes. Huge crime. Impeachment level, no doubt.

His mistake was answering the question in the first place. Much like when his successor was asked if he snorted cocaine, Clinton should have just said, "next question".

Hey, after what my Roth did under Clinton, I wished he'd have gotten one everyday! I'm almost back to where I was then.


So, with you, some crimes are OK??

I'm shocked!!:cool:


RK

david gibson
12-16-2010, 08:45 AM
So, with you, some crimes are OK??

I'm shocked!!:cool:


RK

its like saying its ok to drive drunk as long as nobody gets hurt.

dnf777
12-16-2010, 08:50 AM
So, with you, some crimes are OK??

I'm shocked!!:cool:


RK


Depends on what your definintion of a crime is. If its ANYTHING against law that is in effect, then yes. I can PROMISE you that happily married military couples violate the the UCMJ everynite, if they're lucky. Apparently there is an old law that was never removed from the City of Houston charter than forbids the operation of "horseless carriages" in the city limits, so as to not spook horses.

Gibson: Drunk driving has nothing to do with this topic and you know it. That was not even a clever twist, by your standards. Drunk driving kills what-40,000 a year in this country? You're comparing apples to volkswagons.

sandyg
12-16-2010, 09:27 AM
Depends on what your definintion of a crime is. If its ANYTHING against law that is in effect, then yes. I can PROMISE you that happily married military couples violate the the UCMJ everynite, if they're lucky. Apparently there is an old law that was never removed from the City of Houston charter than forbids the operation of "horseless carriages" in the city limits, so as to not spook horses.

Gibson: Drunk driving has nothing to do with this topic and you know it. That was not even a clever twist, by your standards. Drunk driving kills what-40,000 a year in this country? You're comparing apples to volkswagons.

You started it with your facocta comment about a little lie not being an impeachable offense. Apparently others in power disagreed with you. You just don't know when to abandon an indefensible position, do you?

dnf777
12-16-2010, 11:23 AM
You started it with your facocta comment about a little lie not being an impeachable offense. Apparently others in power disagreed with you. You just don't know when to abandon an indefensible position, do you?


I am proud to disagree with the nimrods in Washington on a daily basis. Their approval rating is somewhere in the low-20s. Apparently others NOT in power agree with me. I"m sure you agree with the likes of Palin and Bachmann often. Good for you.

ducknwork
12-16-2010, 11:49 AM
So perjury is okay, depending on what you are lying about?

dnf777
12-16-2010, 11:57 AM
So perjury is okay, depending on what you are lying about?

No, it isn't. But does it rise to the level of treason or high crimes? Really.
Partisan politics would say "yes".

sandyg
12-16-2010, 11:58 AM
I am proud to disagree with the nimrods in Washington on a daily basis. Their approval rating is somewhere in the low-20s. Apparently others NOT in power agree with me. I"m sure you agree with the likes of Palin and Bachmann often. Good for you.

Yeah, you're such a genius that you know who others agree with. RIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTT.

It's not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of law!

ducknwork
12-16-2010, 12:19 PM
No, it isn't. But does it rise to the level of treason or high crimes? Really.
Partisan politics would say "yes".

What should happen to a president who commits perjury?

18 USC 1621


Whoever—
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.

Buzz
12-16-2010, 12:54 PM
Yeah, you're such a genius that you know who others agree with. RIIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTT.




I hate smart people too.

JDogger
12-16-2010, 01:43 PM
What should happen to a president who commits perjury?



Impeachment, and if the perjury involved a sex act between two consenting adults, which was nobody's business but their own, acquittal.

Which is exactly what happened.

JD

My grandfather taught me when I was a young man, that peccadillos with the opposite gender would occur, and that a gentleman never discussed them.

BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?

Alex
12-16-2010, 01:48 PM
So lying about the hefty girl in the blue dress is treason and impeachable, but lying about intelligence that leads to a war costing over a 100,000 deaths and wrecking our economy; and then outing the spy wife of the journalist who exposes your lies, thats okay?

You guys aren't biased, you are just true patriots, unlike Max Cleland etc

david gibson
12-16-2010, 01:51 PM
Impeachment, and if the perjury involved a sex act between two consenting adults, which was nobody's business but their own, acquittal.

Which is exactly what happened.

JD

My grandfather taught me when I was a young man, that peccadillos with the opposite gender would occur, and that a gentleman never discussed them.

BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?

so its not a lie if what he was lying about is not a crime. got it.

Roger Perry
12-16-2010, 01:52 PM
So perjury is okay, depending on what you are lying about?
So if a President lies or claims executive previledge to cover up lies or criminal acts it does't count because he is not under oath??????

JDogger
12-16-2010, 02:18 PM
so its not a lie if what he was lying about is not a crime. got it.

Nooo... as usual you missed the point once again.

It's over. It's done. It's history.


"BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?"

Get it?

Try to get a grip on the here and now. :rolleyes:

JD

sandyg
12-16-2010, 02:27 PM
Nooo... as usual you missed the point once again.

It's over. It's done. It's history.


"BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?"

Get it?

Try to get a grip on the here and now. :rolleyes:

JD

Your comrade in post 25 brought it up...

dnf777
12-16-2010, 02:32 PM
So lying about the hefty girl in the blue dress is treason and impeachable, but lying about intelligence that leads to a war costing over a 100,000 deaths and wrecking our economy; and then outing the spy wife of the journalist who exposes your lies, thats okay?



He wasn't under oath, so it was perfectly ok. Besides, I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Oh, and he didn't say, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". Double protection.

So relax, its only a war and a couple trillion dollars and few thousand lives. Tsk Tsk Tsk....nowhere NEAR a hummer and denying it!

ducknwork
12-16-2010, 03:28 PM
He wasn't under oath, so it was perfectly ok. Besides, I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Oh, and he didn't say, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". Double protection.

So relax, its only a war and a couple trillion dollars and few thousand lives. Tsk Tsk Tsk....nowhere NEAR a hummer and denying it!

No, lying like you guys are claiming isn't right, but it's not perjury either. I am not sure what the crime would be called, but I am sure that between all of you, you can come up with something to call it.

However, I have a hard time believing that the democrats chose not to pursue any wrongdoing by Bush simply because they were nice guys and wanted to move on. It would probably be something more like they don't have the proof to make a case...which means it may not be true. I don't believe that if all the Roger claims was 100% true, nothing would have happened to Bush.

dnf777
12-16-2010, 03:34 PM
No, lying like you guys are claiming isn't right, but it's not perjury either. I am not sure what the crime would be called, but I am sure that between all of you, you can come up with something to call it.

However, I have a hard time believing that the democrats chose not to pursue any wrongdoing by Bush simply because they were nice guys and wanted to move on. It would probably be something more like they don't have the proof to make a case...which means it may not be true. I don't believe that if all the Roger claims was 100% true, nothing would have happened to Bush.

Well, two possibilities, three is you consider "all of the above".

1) when in control of all agencies involved, its easy to make the scene fit your needs. ie cover your tracks

2) they probably have just enough dirt on Obama and his chicago cronies to lever their mouths shut.

3) All of the above (my choice)

And even if Almighty God Himself came down from Heaven and confirmed that the republicans lied to take us to war, the Beckites, Hannitonians, and Rushites would accuse God of being a democrat and smear his character!

sandyg
12-16-2010, 05:27 PM
Well, two possibilities, three is you consider "all of the above".

1) when in control of all agencies involved, its easy to make the scene fit your needs. ie cover your tracks

2) they probably have just enough dirt on Obama and his chicago cronies to lever their mouths shut.

3) All of the above (my choice)

And even if Almighty God Himself came down from Heaven and confirmed that the republicans lied to take us to war, the Beckites, Hannitonians, and Rushites would accuse God of being a democrat and smear his character!

Once again, the genius knows what everyone else would do. It must be fascinating to be inside your head; fantasies, paranoia, delusions of grandeur, etc.

JDogger
12-16-2010, 05:31 PM
Your comrade in post 25 brought it up...

To quote rk, "HHHhhEEEEStaaartedIIIiitttTT!!"

You've been around long enough now to realize that threads on PP veer OT almost every time, no matter who is posting. Right?

JD

Roger Perry
12-17-2010, 12:04 PM
He wasn't under oath, so it was perfectly ok. Besides, I think he had his fingers crossed behind his back. Oh, and he didn't say, "cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye". Double protection.

So relax, its only a war and a couple trillion dollars and few thousand lives. Tsk Tsk Tsk....nowhere NEAR a hummer and denying it!

Don't forget illegal wire tapping.

Roger Perry
12-17-2010, 12:22 PM
No, lying like you guys are claiming isn't right, but it's not perjury either. I am not sure what the crime would be called, but I am sure that between all of you, you can come up with something to call it.

However, I have a hard time believing that the democrats chose not to pursue any wrongdoing by Bush simply because they were nice guys and wanted to move on. It would probably be something more like they don't have the proof to make a case...which means it may not be true. I don't believe that if all the Roger claims was 100% true, nothing would have happened to Bush.

So just because Bush did not go before Congress and testify under oath that he did not comit any crimes or misdemeanors or tell any lies???????????

ducknwork
12-17-2010, 12:31 PM
So just because Bush did not go before Congress and testify under oath that he did not comit any crimes or misdemeanors or tell any lies???????????

Did you even read what I wrote? Are you even capable of reading? Attempt to read my first paragraph again. Maybe you can find someone to help you out if you are struggling...

Roger Perry
12-17-2010, 01:04 PM
Did you even read what I wrote? Are you even capable of reading? Attempt to read my first paragraph again. Maybe you can find someone to help you out if you are struggling...

This is the Oath Bush swore to when he took over the office of the President

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Bush trounced all over the Constitution so if he took an oath would he not have commited perjury himself and lied under oath:confused:

ducknwork
12-17-2010, 02:46 PM
Do you ever answer a question directly? I don't think you do.

By your comment, you are assuming that Bush knowingly lied, and purposefully and maliciously did things that did not "preserve and protect the Constitution". If that were true, I truly believe that some legal action would have been taken.

Roger Perry
12-17-2010, 03:27 PM
Do you ever answer a question directly? I don't think you do.

By your comment, you are assuming that Bush knowingly lied, and purposefully and maliciously did things that did not "preserve and protect the Constitution". If that were true, I truly believe that some legal action would have been taken.

I would say Bush was lucky he did not get prosicuted

Obama Won't Prosecute Bush War Crimes (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/obama_wont_prosecute_bush_war.php)




President-Elect Barack Obama has sent a pretty clear signal that Bush administration officials are in the clear, saying on ABC's Meet the Press;

I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/obama_wont_prosecute_bush_war.php

Roger Perry
12-17-2010, 03:58 PM
Do you ever answer a question directly? I don't think you do.

By your comment, you are assuming that Bush knowingly lied, and purposefully and maliciously did things that did not "preserve and protect the Constitution". If that were true, I truly believe that some legal action would have been taken.

Do you think GW Bush ever commited any crimes, lied about committing any crimes, covered up any crimes or failed to preserve or protect the Constitution while serving as the 43rd President of the United States of America????????????????

road kill
12-17-2010, 05:34 PM
Do you think GW Bush ever commited any crimes NO I DO NOT!, lied about committing any crimes NO I DO NOT!, covered up any crimes NO I DO NOT!or failed to preserve or protect the Constitution while serving as the 43rd President of the United States of America???????????????? NO I DO NOT!


If you have any FACTS to support your opinions, post them.

You are nuts Roger, truly obsessed.
Your act is very sad, and getting really old.


RK

dnf777
12-17-2010, 05:40 PM
If you have any FACTS to support your opinions, post them.

You are nuts Roger, truly obsessed.
Your act is very sad, and getting really old.


RK


I've asked this question many times since 2003, and have yet to receive a coherent answer. Not just here on POTUS, but anywhere I've heard the question asked as well:

Why did we go to war in Iraq?

Once the reason changed several times, did each reason invalidate the previous reason? Or did they just keep adding up? In the final review, WHY DID WE GO TO WAR IN IRAQ?

road kill
12-17-2010, 05:44 PM
I've asked this question many times since 2003, and have yet to receive a coherent answer. Not just here on POTUS, but anywhere I've heard the question asked as well:

Why did we go to war in Iraq?

Once the reason changed several times, did each reason invalidate the previous reason? Or did they just keep adding up? In the final review, WHY DID WE GO TO WAR IN IRAQ?

Just out of curiosity, WTH does that have to do with Roger's wild, daily, relentless, slo-drip of hatred for Bush??

If Iraq is that awful, why are we still there?

Your side has the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the Executive and the media.

We are still there.


RK

dnf777
12-17-2010, 06:43 PM
Just out of curiosity, WTH does that have to do with Roger's wild, daily, relentless, slo-drip of hatred for Bush??

If Iraq is that awful, why are we still there?

Your side has the House, the Senate, the Judiciary, the Executive and the media.

We are still there.


RK

I'm not lookin' for a fight. Honest.

Its just I'm feeling a little buyer's remorse....given the price in blood we've paid. There's going to be lots of empty chairs at Christmas dinner because of Iraq, and I'd like to know why we bought that lemon.

I have my opinions on Bush, but realize he won't be prosecuted for many reasons, and have let that go. But just out of curiousity, I'd still like to know what his motivations were in getting us back in there. Especially after his Dad and Cheney showed great restraint and wisdom after Gulf War I, in choosing to keep a known enemy close by, rather than upsetting a delicate stability in that region.

And yes, I know Obama is CIC, and am wondering why we don't pull out completely. Afghanistan too. I realize there's al qaeda in astan, but they're also in Yemen, P-stan, somalia, Detroit, France......

david gibson
12-17-2010, 07:04 PM
Nooo... as usual you missed the point once again.

It's over. It's done. It's history.


"BTW Clinton was President a long time ago...who gives a FRA anymore?"

Get it?

Try to get a grip on the here and now. :rolleyes:

JD

couldnt the same be said for bush? or are you the one that gets to decide which past presidents actions are relevant?:rolleyes: i can roll eyes too buddy....:rolleyes: see? i even did it again....:rolleyes: whoa again !!!

i'll stop -i got a pup to train...:rolleyes: darn darn i just cant help myself - afterall - who gives a FRA anymore? DYTIRGAF?

JDogger
12-17-2010, 08:08 PM
couldnt the same be said for bush? or are you the one that gets to decide which past presidents actions are relevant?:rolleyes: i can roll eyes too buddy....:rolleyes: see? i even did it again....:rolleyes: whoa again !!!

i'll stop -i got a pup to train...:rolleyes: darn darn i just cant help myself - afterall - who gives a FRA anymore? DYTIRGAF?

Did I mention Bush? Don't think so. Please don't confuse me with RP. Bush is Roger's schtick, and he plays you guys like a virtuoso. ;) (let's try winkies)

Yes, IDoTYRGAF. Thats a commonality shared here on RTF. We all are here for dogs.

On PP we are mostly here to get WET. Why Even Try.....

Between the two, the result is sometimes the same. Wet Happens.

Que no?

Good training and HT'ing, JD

david gibson
12-17-2010, 08:55 PM
Did I mention Bush? Don't think so. Please don't confuse me with RP. Bush is Roger's schtick, and he plays you guys like a virtuoso. ;) (let's try winkies)

Yes, IDoTYRGAF. Thats a commonality shared here on RTF. We all are here for dogs.

On PP we are mostly here to get WET. Why Even Try.....

Between the two, the result is sometimes the same. Wet Happens.

Que no?

Good training and HT'ing, JD

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

JDogger
12-17-2010, 11:24 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Speechless, are ya, eh?

;)

david gibson
12-18-2010, 12:00 AM
Speechless, are ya, eh?

;)

yeah, pretty much. but trust me, its not because of your superior intellect....

david gibson
12-18-2010, 12:02 AM
Did I mention Bush? Don't think so. Please don't confuse me with RP. Bush is Roger's schtick, and he plays you guys like a virtuoso. ;) (let's try winkies)

Yes, IDoTYRGAF. Thats a commonality shared here on RTF. We all are here for dogs.

On PP we are mostly here to get WET. Why Even Try.....

Between the two, the result is sometimes the same. Wet Happens.

Que no?

Good training and HT'ing, JD

you do know there is a product called "Depends" for folks like you, right??

just tryin' to help regards....

JDogger
12-18-2010, 12:14 AM
yeah, pretty much. but trust me, its not because of your superior intellect....

OK..........

david gibson
12-18-2010, 12:18 AM
OK..........

is that all you got??? whats a matter - is "Wet" happening again??? LOL!!!

big time TMI!

JDogger
12-18-2010, 12:18 AM
you do know there is a product called "Depends" for folks like you, right??

just tryin' to help regards....


Ow...ow...I'm wounded. :(

Enjoy your weekend, JD

JDogger
12-18-2010, 12:43 AM
is that all you got??? whats a matter - is "Wet" happening again??? LOL!!!

big time TMI!

The TMI is yours ;-) and yours alone.

I thought you had a pup to train?

Feh...Why Even Try...

JDogger

cotts135
12-18-2010, 06:51 AM
If there were grounds for impeachment, he would have been impeached.
If there ARE grounds for any criminal prosecutions, he would be indicted.
Yardley's and RP's and your wishes don't equal fact.

Just because it FEELS good to say that crap doesn't make it right.


RK

Going to disagree with you on this one. There was plenty of evidence of torture to detainees that could have warranted an indictment. Indictments are easy to get but Obama didn't want to prosecute any of the previous administration. Remember "Lets look forward and not backward". The simple explanation for this is that he could be next.

Steve Hester
12-18-2010, 08:10 AM
Fairness to Bush was that no one initiated impeachment proceedings in the last two years of his presidency and no one pursued criminal prosecutions after he left (despite a lot of pressure to do so). I suspect that had Bush been a Democrat with Republicans taking over in 2006, that we would have seen both. For the last 20 years, Democrats have played pussy cats to the Republicans' lions when it comes to pure vindictiveness.

Bush didn't lie to the Grand Jury, Clinton did......

Roger Perry
12-18-2010, 10:45 AM
Bush didn't lie to the Grand Jury, Clinton did......

Bush was not brought in front of a grand jury but he still took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. But I would have liked to have seen him answer questions in front of a Congressional pannel. Does illegal wiretaps ring a bell?????? How about prisoner torture?????????? WMD??????????????Valorie Plame??????? How about albert gonzalez sharades??????????????

sandyg
12-18-2010, 11:53 AM
Bush was not brought in front of a grand jury but he still took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. But I would have liked to have seen him answer questions in front of a Congressional pannel. Does illegal wiretaps ring a bell?????? How about prisoner torture?????????? WMD??????????????Valorie Plame??????? How about albert gonzalez sharades??????????????

Oh give it a rest. You sound like a nut job who wears an aluminum foil hat. If you locked up every politician who didn't follow the oath they would ALL be in jail.

Your neighbors must love you.

Roger Perry
12-18-2010, 11:59 AM
Oh give it a rest. You sound like a nut job who wears an aluminum foil hat. If you locked up every politician who didn't follow the oath they would ALL be in jail.

Your neighbors must love you.

And you my dear, sound like a right wing wacko;)

sandyg
12-18-2010, 12:13 PM
And you my dear, sound like a right wing wacko;)

Really? How can you tell that from what I just posted? Using your logic, everyone who isn't conservative thinks like you do, which I know isn't true. You need to see a shrink.

Why don't you take a break and count some hanging chads? Maybe you can find enough to make Al Gore president. Wouldn't that be swell?

dnf777
12-18-2010, 01:50 PM
And you my dear, sound like a right wing wacko;)

Don't let him fool you. He really IS one!

road kill
12-18-2010, 02:12 PM
Don't let him fool you. He really IS one!

Yeah, and you are a "middle of the road independent!!"


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:D



RK

Roger Perry
12-20-2010, 11:04 AM
Don't let him fool you. He really IS one!

I thought it was a she:confused: