Do Politicians' Lies Depend More on Their Party or the Lie Itself?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Your only saying that because we KNOW where your favorite president went. Bill Clinton RAN TO CANADA to avoid the draft. Then he gets in office and breaks down the military. And now he is out of office and he said in one interview "If there wasn't in age limit I would get in the trenches and fight with the troops" Huh yeah if the trenches were covered with 3 inches of bullet proof material and it had an escape root to china where his military friends are since they are happy about all our military information he gave them.

And this refutes what I said about Bush...how? Clinton avoided Vietnam, but so did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc...Gore went as a journalist, and has played down his involvement. Bush Sr. was an actual airman, I guess, and Kerry and McCain both served honorably, to my knowledge.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

If there were a draft today, lots of people would avoid it. There are different ways of avoid it than dessertion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
If there were a draft today, lots of people would avoid it. There are different ways of avoid it than dessertion.

Is this a hint about Bush's missing year from the military?

BTW, obviously Clinton didn't 'flee to Canada'...that's just a silly thing to say, don't you think?

 

[schwarzchildradius]

He fled to Oxford and learned how to be a lawyer, as a Rhodes scholar.

 

[Zero]

Just a correction...Donald Rumsfeld was already a Navy veteran before Vietnam. Cheney, however, avoided the war through student deferments, just like Clinton. “I had other priorities in the ’60s than military service,” said Cheney, and so did Clinton. You don't pass up being a Rhodes scholar for much.

 

[qwpoi]

The wierdest and maybe most desparate was the blatant fabrication of official Iraqi documents designed to lead the UN to believe that Iraq was persuing Nuclear weapons. The IAEA took one look and within a week rejected them as fakes and frauds.

Nicool, you haven't addressed this. If you want to say that they didn't in fact lie you could argue that they were simply too stupid to have the documents checked over for veracity.

Which is the scarier assumption?

And Bush's PR tactics are just amazing. His administration is obsessed with looking good.

And how about the sacking of the Baghad National Library and Museum? And Rumsfeld's flippant response--I can't remember it exactly, but it went something like 'oh, the TVs show the same vase being stolen 20 times.' Completely disregarding the fact that the pentagon was *repeatedly warned* about the necessity of protecting these two infrastructures containing 7000 years of history? I consider the loss of these artifacts to be one of the most devastating losses that could have been easily prevented if Bush had had the foresight to put just *one* tank. But apparently culture doesn't matter anymore. And the White House's statement that they didn't anticipate that the Iraqis would be looting their own buildings: patently untrue. Unless they want to claim ignorance to history. Same thing happened on a much less tragic scale during the Gulf War. There is precedent for it.

Where does your venom come from Nicool? Please construct a rational argument that has some semblance of a thesis, or at least a point. A point that is not, Bush rules, Clinton sucks. Even so called Democrats have reasons and arguments as to why they dislike Bush, which they can then put forth and debate with others who may have different points of view. IN A RATIONAL MANNER.

 

[Adam]

Politicians lie?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Adam
Politicians lie?

Only when their lips are moving...