Where Is The Apology?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Where Is The Apology?

  1. #1
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830

    Where Is The Apology?

    Paul Krugman raises some good questions in this NY Times article.

    George Bush promised to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Instead, he got rid of accountability.
    Why is it that the world had to stop and an independent investigation convened and impeachment proceedings begun when Clinton got his d**k sucked, but Bush seems to operate with impunity well above the law for actions far more severe?

    In the end many people said it wasn't the sex act that offended them about Clinton but that he lied- blatantly- under oath- when questioned on it. Keep in mind I was one of those people. I didn't like Clinton and I was in favor of impeaching him for lying (among other things) at the time. In retrospect I am glad the impeachment failed. The country wouldn't survive long if Presidents were impeached any time they did something unpopular. But, IMHO - Bush's blatant lying has fargraver consequences for this country and its future.

    Somehow Bush has managed to trick, fool, bribe or bully the rest of the government and the press into letting his actions go unquestioned and unanswered.

    Still, the big story isn't about Mr. Bush; it's about what's happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn't. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?
    Full article: Where's the Apology?

  2. #2
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    He'll never apologize. He won't see a reason for it because:

    a) he "went" on information provided (even if it was wrong)

    b) he won't admit to having "full disclosure" (unless someone investigates how much he knew)

    c) he's "saved" Iraq

    d) stopped a mass-murdered

    e) he Texan and therefore, always right.

    BTW, you do know that he and Blair were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize? I figured you would have replied or commented at this point on this.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,019
    I think Tony's head probably exploded

    He'll be back as soon as he gets his head duct taped back together.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    275
    Originally posted here by MsMittens
    He'll never apologize. He won't see a reason for it because:
    Originally posted here by MsMittens

    c) he's "saved" Iraq
    Do you dispute this? Or would you have rather left the mass-murdering rape room running dictator by the name of Saddam Hussein in power?

    Originally posted here by MsMittens

    d) stopped a mass-murdered
    What, is this a bad thing now?

    Originally posted here by MsMittens

    e) he Texan and therefore, always right.
    That's just an asinine stereotypical statement.

    .dublix

  5. #5
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    I was being scarcastic...

    That said, I won't dispute that something needed to be done. But to lie to do it?? Makes me wonder if there are other things he lied about. It's a pick and choose kind of thing. Why won't they deal with the mass-murders that go on elsewhere? Why didn't his father deal with this in 1991 when it could have stopped a lot of the genocide that happened?

    And why even lie about the reason? Why not just say "We're going in to deal with your genocide issue since you aren't getting it?". Why make the false claim of WMD??

    Strikes me more as a reason to get sympathy and support (use a war -- very patriotic. As I was told once here, if you're not with us, you are a terrorist). But it also strikes me as having ugly elements of Vietnam. Thankfully the soldiers don't seem to be caught in the middle again (in the sense of the shame that was spewed out against those that returned from Vietnam).
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424
    That's just an asinine stereotypical statement.
    No it's not... that's why I moved there

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    275
    Originally posted here by MsMittens
    I was being scarcastic...

    That said, I won't dispute that something needed to be done. But to lie to do it?? Makes me wonder if there are other things he lied about.
    How do you even know as fact anyone lied? David Kay said it was a failure at the CIA.

    Originally posted here by MsMittens

    Why won't they deal with the mass-murders that go on elsewhere?
    I'm up for it, let's all chip in and do it together. Oh wait, this is the world, forgive my ignorance.


    Originally posted here by MsMittens

    Why didn't his father deal with this in 1991 when it could have stopped a lot of the genocide that happened?
    The UN mandate did not call for this. I wish he would have though.


    Originally posted here by MsMittens

    And why even lie about the reason? Why not just say "We're going in to deal with your genocide issue since you aren't getting it?". Why make the false claim of WMD??
    Again, you don't know anyone lied. With that said, hell yeah, if Bush had said that I would have been all aboard. Either way the right thing was done. Who can dispute this?

    .dublix

  8. #8
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    OMG, Negative made me laugh!


    This whole apology thing started rippling on the far left about 3 or 4 days ago and gained full speed in the last 2. Somehow they say that an apology would make everyone happy but it won't so I don't get the idea behind it. I also find it amusing that Clinton lying under "Oath" is the same as the president saying something along the lines that we have to remove Sadams weapons programs before they become a threat and that somehow relates to impeachment practices of old.

    To be honest, it really wasn't Clinton lying that bugged me, it was the fact that he considered us all too stupid to realize what he was trying to pull. Lol, I find it funny now, water under the bridge. Heck even Clinton said last night or the night before that they weren't sure in 1998 if they got everything. That in 1998 he attacked weapons storage facilities. Guys and gals, this is 1998. He also said they had no way of knowing because there were not any inspectors in Iraq, remember Saddam forced them all out. He also admited that a regime change was part of his own plans. I just don't get the backlash. Call me crazy, if Bush started apologizing all over the place and trying to apease those who will never be apeased, then I'll take another look at him because that puts him in the same boat as the leading democratic candidates. I think he saw a threat and acted on it and used Saddam as a vice to present a case to the rest of the world that .... how did he put it... something like the United States doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself. Hell the UN won't even go back into Iraq until and I quote the United Nations "The United States can guarantee the safety of UN troops." Since when does the United States defend the UN? And those who oppose "how bushy went about it" Want the UN to handle every aspect of foreign diplomacy when they won't even go back into Iraq because they are scared of fallout from the Bath party.

    On another note has anyone seen the massive lines of Iraq people who are changing their names from Saddam? lol, it's not chic anymore to have your children named after your loving dictator. Even if Bush went about it the wrong way.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    What happen to all those that where screaming about the fact that WE were the ones who gave him the weapons which we are now searching for. Does anyone doubt the he was at least trying to develop weapons of mass murder.

    So were given that he had the weapons that we gave him but can’t remember what he did with and his scientists were working hard to develop more. In his list of allowed weapons were hidden among other things, nerve gas shells. He possessed missiles that had a range that exceeded the range he was allowed to have. He gave large sums of money to the families of suicide murderers thereby openly showing his support and encouragement of terrorism.

    He knew we were definitely going to march on him but his friends held us back for months.

    Just what we all know about sadam…for sure, was enough reason to take him out. The UN should have taken him out, bush senior should have taken him out but bush jr did. Saving iraq was never given as a reason for doing it although we're trying very hard to do so. where does it say that an invader must repair any damages caused to the invaded. maybe the un says this but nobody ever takes them seriously.

    In typical democrat fashion a theory is speculated then touted as fact. I listened to hillary give a speech. She said with her knowledge of the inner workings of government what ‘might’ have happened was…this this and that. By the end of her speech she was screaming “is this the way we want our country run?” as if whatever she imagined had become fact. It had not. Just as saying bush lied does not mean that he did and no amount of rhetoric will serve as proof.

    Clintons affaire was used by his enemies to try and take him down. “Show me or your lying” is being used by bush’s enemies. Im not buying it
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  10. #10
    Dont hold your breath. Bush does not even directly answer questions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •