The Knight Time Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I can come up with at least 50 for Kerry.  What's your point?

The point is, this notion that Kerry is a waffler was cooked up by Karl Rove and planted in your heads through $80 million worth of television commercials and other weapons in the arsenal of the right-wing spin machine.

In other words, it isn't real. It's spin.

The same idea could be put out there for virtually any U.S. senator of either party -- and, as Mako demonstrated -- for Bush.

Unfortunately for you, indisputable facts refute your claim.

John Kerry has 20 years of voting on the Senate that call his accountability into serious question.

You are missing my point.

Anyone with a 20-year voting record in the U.S. Senate could be subjected to the same hatchet job that the Bush campaign is now carrying out against John Kerry.

Quote:Perhaps you can spin why Kerry voted to send our boys into combat, but voted not to fund them.

First, John Kerry did not send our boys to Iraq.

Bush did that.

Kerry -- along with most of the rest of the Senate -- merely voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/</a>

The distinction is important. It was not at all apparent at the time of the vote that Bush wanted to use force. The vote occurred in early October. The invasion began in March.

In other words, the Senate essentially voted to trust Bush to use his good judgment.

I'm certain many senators regret placing so much trust in Bush.

Second, Kerry did, in fact, vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it. That statement has been laughed at. But it's absolutely true.

Kerry's approach was rather innovative. He actually came up with a way to *pay* for the $87 billion: Temporarily repeal the tax cut for Americans who earn more than $400,000.

The amendment was offered on the floor of the Senate. It was rejected 57-42.

Kerry then voted against the Republican approach: To plow another $87 billion into Iraq without actually coming up with a way to pay for it.

‘It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism,’ Kerry said.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Kerry's approach was rather innovative. He actually came up with a way to *pay* for the $87 billion: Temporarily repeal the tax cut for Americans who earn more than $400,000.

The amendment was offered on the floor of the Senate. It was rejected 57-42.

Kerry then voted against the Republican approach: To plow another $87 billion into Iraq without actually coming up with a way to pay for it.

So, in a time when our military needed funds vital to our success in Iraq and THEIR safety, Kerry was thinking only about raising taxes on the wealthy?

I'm sure the men and women serving our country are thrilled to know that raising taxes is more important to John Kerry than their added safety and protection.

MAKO Wrote:Despite all the blathering about how brilliant they happen to be, not one of the konservs has even attempted to defend Dubya's flip flops. Indeed, by their silence, they are admitting he has flip flopped on at least the 25 issues listed.

Come on Mako!!!!!

That waht Consewrv do. They ALWAYS IGNORE the topic and then they either do one of two things.

1. After ignoring the topicthey ramble on about something else. For ex. read a few posts after the original in this thread.

2. They somehow in some way bring up Bill Clinton and start whining about Clinton.

Topic never answered.

MAKO Wrote:Despite all the blathering about how brilliant they happen to be, not one of the konservs has even attempted to defend Dubya's flip flops. Indeed, by their silence, they are admitting he has flip flopped on at least the 25 issues listed.

I did. I did not say “W

Schadenfreude Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I can come up with at least 50 for Kerry.  What's your point?

The point is, this notion that Kerry is a waffler was cooked up by Karl Rove and planted in your heads through $80 million worth of television commercials and other weapons in the arsenal of the right-wing spin machine.

In other words, it isn't real. It's spin.

The same idea could be put out there for virtually any U.S. senator of either party -- and, as Mako demonstrated -- for Bush.

Unfortunately for you, indisputable facts refute your claim.

John Kerry has 20 years of voting on the Senate that call his accountability into serious question.

You are missing my point.

Anyone with a 20-year voting record in the U.S. Senate could be subjected to the same hatchet job that the Bush campaign is now carrying out against John Kerry.

Quote:Perhaps you can spin why Kerry voted to send our boys into combat, but voted not to fund them.

First, John Kerry did not send our boys to Iraq.

Bush did that.

Kerry -- along with most of the rest of the Senate -- merely voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/</a>

The distinction is important. It was not at all apparent at the time of the vote that Bush wanted to use force. The vote occurred in early October. The invasion began in March.

In other words, the Senate essentially voted to trust Bush to use his good judgment.

I'm certain many senators regret placing so much trust in Bush.

Second, Kerry did, in fact, vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it. That statement has been laughed at. But it's absolutely true.

Kerry's approach was rather innovative. He actually came up with a way to *pay* for the $87 billion: Temporarily repeal the tax cut for Americans who earn more than $400,000.

The amendment was offered on the floor of the Senate. It was rejected 57-42.

Kerry then voted against the Republican approach: To plow another $87 billion into Iraq without actually coming up with a way to pay for it.

Let's get a few things straight:

1. There are no BOYS in Iraq, nor are there GIRLS. These are adults that made the conscious choice to serve in the Armed Forces.

2. Anyone with a 20 year voting record in the Senate isn't running for President. John Kerry is, and if he wishes for us to consider him seriously for the office, he needs to explain why he essentially lobbied for further cutbacks in intelligence in 1997, now suddenly he's the biggest intelligence fan on the planet.

3. The Senate asked for 2 SEPARATE REVIEWS on the EXACT SAME INTELLIGENCE the White House received. Bush granted it. After both reviews, members of the Senate gave more hawkish speeches on Iraq than Bush did.

So let's be honest, SchadenFRAUD...your precious, misguided, misled Senate members weren't given some trumped up version of the intelligence...they were given the exact same stuff and voluntarily lobbied for the action the President took.

4. So...Bush actually WAITED 5 MONTHS after the Senate vote to take action? You mean he didn't rip the guns out his holsters yelling "YEE-HAH" the moment after the gavel dropped?
I dunno...5 months seems like a goodly amount of time to make a careful, reasoned choice...but that really cuts into your argument of Bush as the rash neo-con.

5. This one really shows your true colors. AGAIN, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING JOHN KERRY USED THE 87 BIL IN FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS AS A POLITICAL TOOL TO REPEAL TAX CUTS? He dangled the safety of our troops in front of the President in order to gain currency on the domestic front? This from a self described "war hero"? AND YOU THINK THAT'S "INNOVATIVE"?????

My God, you're obtuse.

Here are the facts you refuse to acknowledge:

EVERYONE agreed that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with. George Bush has maintained that position, while John Kerry has reversed it numerous times to enhance his electability.

George Bush not only went above and beyond the call to allow the Senate to make a sound decision, but he then waited 5 extra months while the UN inspections continued.

George Bush BENT OVER BACKWARDS with the UN, begging them to enforce their own resolutions. He went with a smaller coalition as a last resort.
Now we know that Jaques Chirac and the French, not to mention the Germans and the UN itself were taking billions in bribes from the Saddam/Baath regime in the Oil for Food program...in other words, billions of reasons for our "friends" to turn on us.

And when you say Kerry's record is like any old 20-year Senator, you're really selling the man short. When it comes to voting against the weapons systems that allow us to be strong and safe, lobbying to weaken our intelligence agencies then pretending to be a champion of them, and leaving our soldiers high and dry so he can make a political point about taxes, John Kerry has a record THAT'S SECOND TO FREAKING NONE.

Let the bloviating about how Republicans "don't respond to facts" end. We respond fine...and concerning facts? Your version doesn't come close to fact.

Schadenfreude Wrote:First, John Kerry did not send our boys to Iraq.

Bush did that.

Kerry -- along with most of the rest of the Senate -- merely voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail.

congress could have voted no, so it could be all their faults if you want to blame someone, i on the other hand think it was the right thing to do

Interestingly, many of Bush's flip-flops outlined above were originally conservative/small-govt positions that were changed into a liberal/statist positions (especially #13).

BearcatCarl Wrote:5. This one really shows your true colors. AGAIN, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING JOHN KERRY USED THE 87 BIL IN FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS AS A POLITICAL TOOL TO REPEAL TAX CUTS? He dangled the safety of our troops in front of the President in order to gain currency on the domestic front? This from a self described "war hero"? AND YOU THINK THAT'S "INNOVATIVE"?????

We will just have to agree to disagree here.

In my view, the easy way out is to just spend and spend and spend and just leave the financial mess to our children. That is the George Bush way.

John Kerry came up with a way to pay for the $87 billion. You may disagree with the way he proposed to pay for it. But he did come up with a way, and I think he deserves some credit for that.

War is, supposedly, a time of shared sacrafice. We know many poor and working class families are sacrificing. Their kids' boots are on the ground in Iraq.

How are families sacrificing in the top tax brackets?

They aren't. Their kids aren't in Iraq.

Quote:EVERYONE agreed that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with.&nbsp;

I'm not even sure you know what "imminent threat" means.

I am reasonably confident that the Bush administration never asserted Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. In fact, with some digging, I'm pretty sure I could find administration officials flatly denying they ever described Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat.

Philosophically, the whole point of this doctrine of pre-emption was to come up with a loosier, goosier standard for going to war than the "imminent threat" standard.

Back to your point: Everyone did *not* agree Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. If you look at the record, you will see plenty of House and Senate members who voted against authorizing Bush to take action.

I wish Kerry had joined those dissenting Democrats.

It's possible that Kerry -- like many Democrats -- was fearful of the political consequences of not voting to give Bush a green light.

Such fears weren't unreasonable. Look what the Republicans did to Max Cleland. They compared him to Osama bin Laden, even though he gave two legs and an arm for his country.

A real climate of fear existed in this country in 2002. Most Americans thought Saddam Hussein bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11 massacre. And there was a reason for that: The Bush administration wanted it that way.

Bush continually blurred the issue. He continually made nonsensical comparisons between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists responsible for 911.

In other words, Bush preyed upon our fears of terrorism to push America into war against Iraq, a country that never attacked us, that had no plans to, that had nothnig to do with 911 and was not collaborating with terrorists with designs on America.

I believe that climate of fear cowed many Democrats into voting with him even quite a few of them, deep down, did not agree at all.

Others seem to have taken the Bush administration's terrible misinterpretation of intelligence at face value. It is clear that the Bushies looked only for intelligence that supported their case and dismissed intelligence that suggested a contrary point of view. But that obviously wasn't known then.

Kerry says he's in this camp, and the many statements he made in support of action at the time seem to back this up.

Personally, I wish Kerry would have stood up to George Bush on the war from the start.

But the question for me is this: Was Kerry's sin in voting to authorize action worse than Bush's broadbased effort to mislead us into an unnecessary war?

It isn't even close.

I will never, ever forgive George Bush for this war. He scares the hell out of me.

Quote:War is, supposedly, a time of shared sacrafice. We know many poor and working class families are sacrificing. Their kids' boots are on the ground in Iraq.

What sacrifice have you made SF? Just curious.

Quote:How are families sacrificing in the top tax brackets?

Oh I don't know, by paying for 90% of the war maybe?

Quote:Such fears weren't unreasonable. Look what the Republicans did to Max Cleland. They compared him to Osama bin Laden, even though he gave two legs and an arm for his country.

I know you libs love to perpetuate this myth that's what they did but it's not. I've seen the campaign add in question. It shows pictures of Bin Laden, Hussein and then two pictures of the American military. A narriator says, "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead." No sound thinking person can say that's comparing him to bin laden. Which would explain why you libs do it so much.

Quote:A real climate of fear existed in this country in 2002. Most Americans thought Saddam Hussein bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11 massacre. And there was a reason for that: The Bush administration wanted it that way.

Bush continually blurred the issue. He continually made nonsensical comparisons between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists responsible for 911.

Examples? Quotes? References? Can you provide anything other than the conspiracy theories that have taken root in your brain to back this up. Bush claimed that Iraq was part of the the War on Terror and always kept it in that context. He never once, NOT ONCE, claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and you can't cite one example that he, or anyone in his administration did. All you can do is keep feeding the lie and pray the if you tell it enough people will believe it.

Quote:Others seem to have taken the Bush administration's terrible misinterpretation of intelligence at face value.

Examples? Give just one of them misrepresenting intellegence. Especially since a senate committe report and Lord Butler's report have both said no such thing occurred. But oh yes, I forgot, you of course have far better sources and know far more about this than they do right?

It amazes me the intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt way you make your arguments, in spite of all the facts that completely contradict you, you still advance your warped view of reality. THAT is what's scary.

Quote:I will never, ever forgive George Bush for this war.

I'm sure that keeps him awake at night. The fact is you've never forgiven George Bush for being born. The rest just feeds from that hatred.

Schaud is just like most liberals-

Big on opinions, little on facts.

The left wing propoganda machine is in full swing.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Bush continually blurred the issue. He continually made nonsensical comparisons between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists responsible for 911.

Examples? Quotes? References? Can you provide anything other than the conspiracy theories that have taken root in your brain to back this up. Bush claimed that Iraq was part of the the War on Terror and always kept it in that context. He never once, NOT ONCE, claimed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and you can't cite one example that he, or anyone in his administration did. All you can do is keep feeding the lie and pray the if you tell it enough people will believe it.

You said it yourself.

How did our invasion of Iraq protect us against terrorism?

It didn't.

By linking Iraq with terrorism, Bush quietly fused together Saddam, al Qaeda and 911 together in American minds.

He even said, at one point, that we can't distinguish between the Saddam and Qaeda in talking about the war on terror.

It was all intentionally misleading.

What you don't seem to appreciate is just how much thought goes into every word President Bush says. He has a massive team of writers that spend hours debating key phrases that will be used again and again. Much of it is poll tested.

You can argue until you are blue in the face that most (if not all) of what Bush said was technically accurate.

Some of it was. Bush was very, very, very careful with his words.

But that doesn't change the fact that Bush intentionally misled the American people.

We all watched it happen. But only some of us can see it.

Quote:

Quote:Others seem to have taken the Bush administration's terrible misinterpretation of intelligence at face value.

Examples? Give just one of them misrepresenting intellegence. Especially since a senate committe report and Lord Butler's report have both said no such thing occurred. But oh yes, I forgot, you of course have far better sources and know far more about this than they do right?

I said "misinterpretation."

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412317/site/newsweek' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412317/site/newsweek</a>

Excerpts:

The more he read, the more uneasy he became. In early February 2003 Colin Powell was putting the finishing touches on his speech to the United Nations spelling out the case for war in Iraq. Across the Potomac River, a Pentagon intelligence analyst going over the facts in the speech was alarmed at how shaky that case was. Powell's presentation relied heavily on the claims of one especially dubious Iraqi defector, dubbed "Curve Ball" inside the intel community. A self-proclaimed chemical engineer who was the brother of a top aide to Iraqi National Congress chief Ahmad Chalabi, Curve Ball had told the German intelligence service that Iraq had a fleet of seven mobile labs used to manufacture deadly biological weapons. But nobody inside the U.S. government had ever actually spoken to the informant—except the Pentagon analyst, who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source. He recalled that Curve Ball had shown up for their only meeting nursing a "terrible hangover."

After reading Powell's speech, the analyst decided he had to speak up, according to a devastating report from the Senate intelligence committee, released last week, on intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war. He wrote an urgent e-mail to a top CIA official warning that there were even questions about whether Curve Ball "was who he said he was." Could Powell really rely on such an informant as the "backbone" for the U.S. government's claims that Iraq had a continuing biological-weapons program? The CIA official quickly responded: "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say," he wrote. "The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

...

Though the Republican-led committee officially concluded that nobody ordered intelligence analysts to tailor their findings, the question of whether political pressure influenced intelligence decisions leading up to the war has yet to be laid to rest. There were repeated clashes between committee Democrats and Republicans on the issue. Some Democrats on the committee complained that the report gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture of what really happened, since Republicans insisted on taking up the damaging topic of pressure in a second report—to be issued after the presidential election.

...

The report itself points to examples of possible political meddling, especially on the issue of whether Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda. Some U.S. intelligence analysts complained to the CIA ombudsman that "the constant questions and requests to reexamine the issue of Iraq's links to terrorism [were] unreasonable and took away from their valuable analytic time." When the CIA reached a measured and ambiguous view of the connection—"Iraq and Al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship" was the title of one June 2002 report—a team of Pentagon hard-liners under the direction of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith strongly challenged the agency's conclusions. An August 2002 briefing that the Pentagon team gave to the then CIA Director George Tenet pushed evidence that Iraq might have been involved in the 9/11 attack. Their prime piece of evidence: alleged meetings in Prague between lead hijacker Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent. In fact, the committee found that the meetings likely never occurred. The Pentagon team brandished a photo of a supposed October 1999 meeting between Atta and the Iraqi agent that turned out to be bogus. The Qaeda terrorist was actually in Egypt visiting his family when the rendezvous supposedly took place. Tenet "didn't think much of" the briefing, he told committee investigators, so the Pentagon team took its case to Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and Stephen Hadley, the deputy national-security adviser. There they found a much more receptive audience. Libby asked for follow-up, including "a chronology of Atta's travels."

I don't remember Bush saying that we were waging war against Al Queda. I do, however, remember him saying we were going to war with Terrorism. That encompasses alot and is no less important. Iraq, regradless of what you think/feel, was involved with terrorism.

Hussein was subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers' families during the height of the intifada. But the question becomes, is it our responsibility to risk American lives, billions of tax dollars, and the headache of "nation-buidling" in the midst of the medieval insane asylum known as the Middle East? The reports of a direct Saddam-Al Qaeda connection has been conflicting and fuzzy at best. Someone, somewhere within the Bush administration, intelligence gathering was either embellished and/or faulty.

I don't readily agree with SF on a lot of issues, but he raises plenty of good points regarding Iraq. That's not to say there won't be good results from disposing of a dictator. But our attention was far better served elsewhere. In fact, I'd rather anti-terrorism monies be spent on monitoring potential nutcases swimming across the Rio Grande via Mexico into our country, as opposed to patrolling the streets of Fallujah.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and if we were to focus ONLY on Afghanistan, you'd be bitching that Bush didn't do something in a more "broad" manner when we get attacked from a base in Syria. People, he declared war on TERRORISM, NOT AL QAEDA. I can't even keep UP with the damn terrorist organizations anymore but I DO know they are ALL effin against the civilized world. I don't care if France, Germany, or ANY of those pusses get bombed back to the stone-age but I will vote, for the rest of my LIFE, for someone that will say, "France, Germany....you don't want to help us? Fine, go "F" yourself when you need us again as I wasn't elected by the citizens of France and Germany, but the citizens of the US and I swore an oath to proect them".


Kerry is an effin puss with NOOOOOO plan AT ALL aside from appeasement and pandering to the UN and the, YES, I will say it, AXIS OF WEASELS.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's *** what "other" countries think of us. It scares the HELL out of me that you "voters" do.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I can come up with at least 50 for Kerry.&nbsp; What's your point?

The point is, this notion that Kerry is a waffler was cooked up by Karl Rove and planted in your heads through $80 million worth of television commercials and other weapons in the arsenal of the right-wing spin machine.

In other words, it isn't real. It's spin.

The same idea could be put out there for virtually any U.S. senator of either party -- and, as Mako demonstrated -- for Bush.

Exactly.

Why is it that Conserv only preach what is told to them yet when asked about THEIR man Dubya they usually change the subject or do what ALL Conservs LOVE to do.

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!!!!!!!
:cry: :cry: :cry:

MU ATO Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I can come up with at least 50 for Kerry.  What's your point?

The point is, this notion that Kerry is a waffler was cooked up by Karl Rove and planted in your heads through $80 million worth of television commercials and other weapons in the arsenal of the right-wing spin machine.

In other words, it isn't real. It's spin.

The same idea could be put out there for virtually any U.S. senator of either party -- and, as Mako demonstrated -- for Bush.

Exactly.

Why is it that Conserv only preach what is told to them yet when asked about THEIR man Dubya they usually change the subject or do what ALL Conservs LOVE to do.

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!!!!!!!
:cry: :cry: :cry:

I noticed that you skipped through 10 replies to that post which clearly outline that there is no spin necessary- his voting record speaks in volumes that we can not.

The great thing about John Kerry is that we don't even have to argue that much about him.

A simple list of his quotes matched up with his voting record will create a clear picture of the fraud that he really is.

Oh, but back to your main argument, liberals. "Bush lied. Everything is his fault :cry: :cry: "

The Knight Time Wrote:Oh, but back to your main argument, liberals. "Bush lied. Everything is his fault :cry: :cry: "

Don't forget...."Halliburton!!! Halliburton!!!! :cry: :cry: :cry:

The Knight Time Wrote:

MU ATO Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I can come up with at least 50 for Kerry.  What's your point?

The point is, this notion that Kerry is a waffler was cooked up by Karl Rove and planted in your heads through $80 million worth of television commercials and other weapons in the arsenal of the right-wing spin machine.

In other words, it isn't real. It's spin.

The same idea could be put out there for virtually any U.S. senator of either party -- and, as Mako demonstrated -- for Bush.

Exactly.

Why is it that Conserv only preach what is told to them yet when asked about THEIR man Dubya they usually change the subject or do what ALL Conservs LOVE to do.

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!!!!!!!
:cry: :cry: :cry:

I noticed that you skipped through 10 replies to that post which clearly outline that there is no spin necessary- his voting record speaks in volumes that we can not.

The great thing about John Kerry is that we don't even have to argue that much about him.

A simple list of his quotes matched up with his voting record will create a clear picture of the fraud that he really is.

Oh, but back to your main argument, liberals. "Bush lied. Everything is his fault :cry: :cry: "

I have no problem with any topic.

You guys are the ones that cant get over Clinton. When you are 90 years old and about to croak you will still be crying about the 1990s. :rolleyes:

MU ATO Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:

MU ATO Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:

BearcatCarl Wrote:I can come up with at least 50 for Kerry.  What's your point?

The point is, this notion that Kerry is a waffler was cooked up by Karl Rove and planted in your heads through $80 million worth of television commercials and other weapons in the arsenal of the right-wing spin machine.

In other words, it isn't real. It's spin.

The same idea could be put out there for virtually any U.S. senator of either party -- and, as Mako demonstrated -- for Bush.

Exactly.

Why is it that Conserv only preach what is told to them yet when asked about THEIR man Dubya they usually change the subject or do what ALL Conservs LOVE to do.

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!!!!!!!
:cry: :cry: :cry:

I noticed that you skipped through 10 replies to that post which clearly outline that there is no spin necessary- his voting record speaks in volumes that we can not.

The great thing about John Kerry is that we don't even have to argue that much about him.

A simple list of his quotes matched up with his voting record will create a clear picture of the fraud that he really is.

Oh, but back to your main argument, liberals. "Bush lied. Everything is his fault :cry: :cry: "

I have no problem with any topic.

You guys are the ones that cant get over Clinton. When you are 90 years old and about to croak you will still be crying about the 1990s. :rolleyes:

Who the **** is talking about Clinton?

Get a life, and buy a clue while you're at it.

"Everything is Bush's fault :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: "