Karl Rove

I suspect many here think Rove is "evil" simply because of his affiliation with the Republican party.

Okay - maybe evil isn't the appropriate word for Rove. Sneaky, behind-the-scenes-unelected-string-puller who has more influence over the outcome of serious events than I am remotely comfortable with, and less accountability b/c he was appointed - not elected or approved by congress.

As far as the other comparisons to Clinton's misdeeds vs. Bush's: most we'll never come to terms w/because of different political ideologies. That said, I must take on the

Actually, using the above reasoning, we must conclude that Clinton is a "war criminal" as well since he originally had the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan bombed based upon less intelligence than Bush had when entering Iraq.

Bush's actions on misinformation -- that he was warned was incorrect (back to the Wilson / Plame thing - but not only by Wilson) has led to a war lasting longer than 1.5 years (is it 2 now?), costing over 1,000 American lives, and, I recently heard an estimate that 25,000 Iraqi civilians have died - the U.S. being at fault in an estimated 1/3 of those. Add to that the very creation of a "legit" reason for even MORE Muslims to hate us .... Even if Clinton bombed the Sudan incorrectly (and I do not remember the issue at hand), it is small compared to what is happening in Iraq. Actually, Bush has mocked Clinton for his lack of "invasion" (remember the "$1,000,000 missle to hit a camel in the butt" statments?). Looking at Bosnia - that was a UN sanctioned action, and the atrocities that were occuring there were undeniable. Bush claimed we must go to Iraq b/c it was a terrorist breeding ground and there were WMD. It wasn't and there weren't - but it sure is a terrorist breeding ground now.

Clinton's actions in the oval office were sleazy, stupid, WRONG - and I was disgusted with him. I was sickened by the lie that was allowed to continue and the money that was spent to prove he lied (uh, duh?). But all of that is a drop in the bucket compared to the money and LIVES that have gone into the worst planned invasion ever.

neither Democrats nor Republicans can lay claim to having the most unethical players -- it's too close to call!

Very true. My comparision of the two is that Republicans seem to be much more effective at making the most of the other party's scandal du jour. In other words, they get more scandal mileage.

[Vanquisher]

Ummm.... You seem to forget that Clinton, Kerry, the United Nations, and pretty much all of the Western world believed the same intelligence information that Bush had when we entered Iraq. But, somehow Bush is a "war criminal"? Riiiiiiiight.

Bush is the leader of our military and the commander-in-chief. None of the others led us into the war without the approval of the U.N. He invaded Iraq, whether or not Clinton or Kerry believed the intelligence or not. And, if everyone in the U.N. believed it, then how come we went in there with just Tony Blair for back-up without the support of the U.N. Evidence was sketchy at best, I would say.

Actually, using the above reasoning, we must conclude that Clinton is a "war criminal" as well since he originally had the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan bombed based upon less intelligence than Bush had when entering Iraq. The jury for the correctness of that bombing is still out. Additionally I think there are more than a few people involved in the Serbian conflict that might regard a U.S. President who sent in troops to defend the other side that might call him a "war criminal" - which would be ridiculous but follows the reasoning presented above. It should be a crime to bandy about the term "war criminal" without really understanding the meaning of the term.

One bombing vs. a 2-year war campaign is hardly the same thing in my book. I'm sorry you don't think I understand the term war criminal. I think I do.

a) See above (ie the difference between "false pretenses" and "lack of adequate intelligence") and b) I suppose you are against Nixon's impeachment as well based on the above reasoning? There's a tad more to Clinton's "problems" than his perjury (and, as a lawyer, he knew what perjury was and how the President committing open perjury would harm the office itself). But, people have short memories....

I don't know enough about Nixon's impeachment to comment on it. I believe though, that Clinton's perjury was at the worst a stupid and expensive mistake. I think most people who commit adultery lie about it.

I see, so it boils down to your hatred for his religious beliefs? That is what a lot of people on the far end of the political spectrum seem to have a problem with. Religion and the persecution of those who have a strong religious belief system seems to be increasingly popular in some circles.

What about people who don't believe the same things? Our government is supposed to have a freesom of religion clause to it, but this seems only to apply to Christianity. I would like religion to be separate from government mandates, and I do not appreciate the government passing laws based on a religion that is not universal. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams to name a few, were not on the Christianity bandwagon. Though, I hear a lot of people say that this country was founded upon Christianity.

I hardly think people with strong religious beliefs are being persecuted. If that was so, the poster boy for strong religious beliefs wouldn't be in the White House. It will be a long time before you see an atheist in the White House, if ever, as people are more than willing to think that religion and morality go hand in hand.

Again, it boils down to the fact that you don't like it if people have religious beliefs. Anyone in the U.S. can get married. But, you can't call marriage what it isn't - just like calling the sky the ocean or blue the color yellow "ain't gonna make it so".

I don't really see the logic here. Marriage is a legal term. If the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, than the definition needs to be changed, and not our consititution.

Actually, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are dying.

I agree. We really shouldn't add silly amendments to it, but uphold the ones we have. Like #1, I especially like #1. I think Bush especially likes #2. That one isn't my favorite.

That kind of directly conflicts with your statement above about "civil rights dying". Specifically forbidding one particular person or family from running for president because you have a personal dislike for them is the very definition of violating someone's "rights".

I was being tongue-in-cheek. I'm happy what W. is in his last term of office, and I hope that Jeb doesn't run. He is of course welcome to, and I am of course happy to vote for somebody, anybody else.

Going back to the above: Part of the reason so many people (myself included) get annoyed by the rant that "Bush is a 'War Criminal'" and that "he lied" is twofold: 1) If Bush "lied" then there were a heck of a lot of people all over the world and among the Democrats that "lied" as well (and that would imply some ridiculous "plot" among players such as the United Nations and Clinton among many others in order to get the U.S. into Iraq) and 2) there is a profound difference between "lying" and acting on incorrect or insufficient information. If the Democrats were upset that he acted on too little information then I would buy that argument perhaps - I'd at the very least seriously entertain the idea. But, instead you get this hysterical, illogical screaming that is just nonsensical in it's ignorance of recent events.

Am I missing something, or didn't the U.N. specifically not endorse this war? Don't really care who lied and who didn't. We are there. We shouldn't be there. We are breeding more hatred and resentment by the hour. Bring our trrops home. We must all brace ourselves for the inevitable retaliation that will come. Not everyone over there is happy that we are bombing them (big shock), and I don't think it's going to be a nice party after we are finished. Once some terrorists get a hold of some money and weapons, I really don't think they will think twice about blowing things up over here. And how are we sifferent from terrorists anyway? My gun is bigger than your gun and I am making you terrified.

I don't think the Democrats are doing things right either. I am not backing them. I was merely stating that I didn't think Clinton's stint in the Oval Office was nearly the deed that is this war. Yet, people were ready to oust him from office.

I've said that electing someone into office is often about choosing the lesser of two evils, and I still think that is true. I just can't believe this is what we got.

As far as Suddam Hussein being re-instated, I don't really think that's a possibility. I wouldn't say he was an innocent man, would you? To re-instate someone after you tore them from power would be idiotic. After all the U.S. already looks like a bunch of pompous, destructive, jack-asses. We need to stop trying to be the police of the world, get over ourselves, and apologize for our crimes.[/quote]

Think before you speak is all I ask.

Also - just because you may not agree with what is being said does not mean that the writer has not thought about what they're saying.

[DCJenn]

I don't know, I personally think Rove is evil because I see horns and a tail. Wait, you guys can't see them? Luanne can, I know that for sure...

Jenn

[Meenah]

Yep, I see them!!

[Meenah]

I just said goodbye to my daughter's classmate, on his way to Iraq. I have thought about what I am saying, if GWB collapsed in front of me, I would not call 911 or perform CPR ( or Hitler, or Sadam or Bin Laden) Thoroughly thought through.
Luanne

I don't know, I personally think Rove is evil because I see horns and a tail. Wait, you guys can't see them? Luanne can, I know that for sure...

Jenn

Well, you are our Washington insider. If I hear that Karl Rove was run over and pummeled by a group of moms with jogging strollers, I'll know what you were up to. (But I won't rat you out ).

I don't know, I personally think Rove is evil because I see horns and a tail. Wait, you guys can't see them? Luanne can, I know that for sure...

Jenn

Phew ... I thought I just needed to up my medication.

I like the stroller attack plan.

[SueC]

Had to check that this was in the dabates forum before I posted anything! Ha!

Bush is evil. He is a war criminal. I can't believe he got elected again.

Getting a blow job in the oval office and lying about it (and who wouldn't lie about it, really) isn't nearly as unethical and purely evil to me as invading nations under false pretenses ( what weapons of mass destruction?) killing thousands of people, on "their" side and "ours" and asking for over 100 billion dollars to do it with.

Also, using your own relgious, moral compass to screw with millions of people is not something I admire. Can we please try to save people with stem cells, or, oh, that's right the conservative religious zealousness of the Pres says, ummm, nope. And while we're at it, lets have a Constitutional ammendment that says people who love each other, if they are the same sex, can't get married, because after all, what's next, people marrying alligators? So freaking what? If you want to marry an alligator that's fine with me.

Civil rights and liberties are dying.

I need an amendment that says no more Bushes in the White House!

Right on!!!

Please note this is the debate forum and debating is OK. My feelings about GW are mine and my intent is only to express my feelings, not tell others how to feel. I think debating is great. We are fortunate to live in a place where we can express freely.
Luanne

sorry, DH upped security and I can't use half the functions anymore.

" Sneaky, behind-the-scenes-unelected-string-puller who has more influence over the outcome of serious events than I am remotely comfortable with"

Bwwahhhha...that about says how I feel when it comes to Rove. He is, after all, according to legend, the one who started the rumor that McCain's adopted daughter was his love child.

I don't think Bush is guilty of war crimes. I think he is a master distractor though.

I knew Clinton was smarmy, but his smarmyness was personal. He as a person did questionable things. Bush has a fine, upstanding personal life (ignoring his not having the SS restrict his underage daughter' access to a substance known to have cause problems for him). Its just that his questionable stuff is extrapersonal, and that scares the crap of me.

Bush has a fine, upstanding personal life (ignoring his not having the SS restrict his underage daughter' access to a substance known to have cause problems for him). Its just that his questionable stuff is extrapersonal, and that scares the crap of me.

Bush has a DUI on his record and has been caught with cocaine but daddy pulled some strings to keep him from being charged with possession.

Yeah yeah, but he was only a kid then, and he's sober now...he hasn't done anything especially immoral or illigal in his personal life since getting into public office. (insert tongue in cheek emoticon here)