*LIVE Discussion During State of the Union Address

Why would anyone want the Job/Responsibility of being President of the United States - to be Publicly **** on by everyone in the World? Not just for One Term but for 2 Terms = 8 Years - Think about this! Why do people go into Public Service? Why did Bush become a Governor? If he just wanted to make Money - he could have stayed in the Oil or Sports Industry! Think about this! Could it actually be because he cares?

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Why would anyone want the Job/Responsibility of being President of the United States - to be Publicly **** on by everyone in the World? Not just for One Term but for 2 Terms = 8 Years - Think about this! Why do people go into Public Service? Why did Bush become a Governor? If he just wanted to make Money - he could have stayed in the Oil or Sports Industry! Think about this! Could it actually be because he cares?

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Or because he has an ego and can make more money through back-door deals. Personally, I think it is because they have an ego problem. I'm including Bill Clinton in that category. My Uncle has ran for various political offices and he has an ego and so does his comrades in politico world.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
George Bush never lied to anyone and he deserves far more respect than his predecessor. He has taken a firm stand on terrorism and has brought honor and dignity back to the White House.

How do you balance the respect bar of each President? Does Jimmy Carter deserve more respect than Clinton, or does Reagan deserve less respect than Bush? It's this sillyness that somehow some side is less deserving of respect. The only politician I respect are ones like John McCain, John Kerry, and others who haved risked their lives for their country. We must judge politicians on their merit, deeds, actions. Not solely on their title as congressman/congresswoan.

Quote: "Or because he has an Ego and can make more money through back-door deals. Personally, I think it is because they have an Ego problem. I'm including Bill Clinton in that category."

I see... Yeah you have a point! I certainly Believe that G.W. Bush is Snotty/Arrogant & Clinton is a Sell-Out! BOTH are Big LIARS (it figures they are Politicians - its about Image more than anything Substantial)!

I guess that I Respect the Office of "President" more than Bush himself!

Bad News - that Bush was Re-Elected doesn't say much Positive about our Country! I think I understand Sen. Edward's "Two America's" now - there is the America that says one thing (Idealistically) but in Reality does the Other! I try to do whats Right - but then again I can't speak for ALL Americans!

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

nailed that on the head it comes down to the person in office, and whether or not that person deserves respect. well said!

Tahlen

[edit on 3-2-2005 by Tahlen]

"George Bush never lied to anyone and he deserves far more respect than his predecessor. He has taken a firm stand on terrorism and has brought honor and dignity back to the White House."

Good perspective. Unfortunately I don't believe what you have said here. I believe he is fighting terrorism, but he is using it to perform other tasks besides just fighting terrorism. there is two sides to it.

Tahlen

Originally posted by The Division Bell
How do you balance the respect bar of each President? Does Jimmy Carter deserve more respect than Clinton, or does Reagan deserve less respect than Bush? It's this sillyness that somehow some side is less deserving of respect. The only politician I respect are ones like John McCain, John Kerry, and others who haved risked their lives for their country. We must judge politicians on their merit, deeds, actions. Not solely on their title as congressman/congresswoan.

All presidents should be respected, but Clinton really brought disgrace to the office. I disagree with practically everything Jimmy Carter did, but at least he didn't disgrace the office of President. So of all recent Presidents, I would have to have the least respect for Clinton. Even Nixon had enough respect for the office to step down.

Yeah, they have probably all disgraced the office but President Clinton was caught. Thats the big difference, Clinton isn't sly enough to not get caught. Though Carter probably never done anything disgraceful cause he is a really good person.

Quote: "I believe he is fighting Terrorism, but he is using it to perform other tasks besides just fighting Terrorism."

i.e. He POLITICIZED Terrorism! For Example IRAQ had NOTHING to do with
“Al-Queada” Terrorists - Yet we Invaded First & then made up all of the Reasons AFTERWARDS! Lining the Pockets of Corporate America has ALWAYS been their Prime Objective!

The U.S. Government should have been able to PREVENT 9/11 from happening in the first place - but they used it as an EXCUSE for MORE WAR CRUSADING instead!

It really makes me feel ILL!!

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

The Office of the President deserves honor and respect, whether or not you voted for the guys who sits in the chair. Citizens being a poor loser over the election do nothing to help the country. As much as I dislked ole Bill, I still had to respect who he was--The President.

Most Presidents honor and respect their Office, no matter wht they do on the side. Politics is often an impalatable way of life, else "good" people like Carter would run more often.
What Clinton did was to disrespect the Office himself. He made it fashionable to DIS the Presidency. He brought dissing the Office to lows not even during the Vietnam conflict.

Quote: "The Office of the President deserves Honor and Respect, whether or not you voted for the guys who sits in the chair. As much as I disliked ole Bill, I still had to respect who he was--The President."

Funny that is EXACTLY how I feel about G.W. Bush! I kind of felt weird Defending him - But as much as I Dislike the Man Personally (Personality Wise) - I still have to concede that he is the President of the
United States of America!


[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
George Bush never lied to anyone and he deserves far more respect than his predecessor. He has taken a firm stand on terrorism and has brought honor and dignity back to the White House.

Bush lies documented by the Congress!

On Iraq: If Iraq is so bad, why does the Bush Administration have to repeatedly Lie to start a war?

1. Powell relies on FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.

MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa."

MORE: www.msnbc.com...

CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.

MORE: www.cnn.com...

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has demonstrated that UK and US intelligence authorities relied on forged documents to support assertions that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

MORE: www.smh.com.au...

LA Times: WASHINGTON -- Phony weapons documents cited by the United States and Britain as evidence against Saddam Hussein were initially obtained by Italian intelligence authorities, who may have been duped into paying for the forgeries, U.S. officials said Friday. The documents, which purport to show Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger, were exposed as fraudulent by U.N. weapons inspectors last week. The matter has embarrassed U.S. and British officials.

MORE: www.latimes.com...

And even more:

news.google.com...

* * *

2. Bush/Powell's UN "evidence" relies on even MORE supposedly "up to date" FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror.

CNN: Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a " fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. " The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. " The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. " So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old."

MORE: asia.cnn.com...

UK Guardian: Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old. Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday.

MORE: politics.guardian.co.uk...

education.guardian.co.uk...

iafrica.com...

===========================

3. Bush/Powell tries to use edited audio-tape to LIE about Saddam/Bin Laden Connection.

NY Times: It offered little evidence of an alliance between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, but it did seem to validate Arab leaders' warnings that Islamic extremists would exploit any assault on Baghdad to further inflame the region.

MORE: www.nytimes.com...

NY Times: Germany dismissed Wednesday U.S. claims that a new audiotape purportedly by Osama bin Laden proved he was in league with Iraq, while some Muslims were cheered by the possibility the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks was still alive.

More: www.nytimes.com...

Philadelphia Daily News: But if bin Laden was trying to show personal solidarity with Saddam himself, he had a strange way of doing so. He denounced Saddam's secular, socialist al-Baath party as "infidels." What's more, the statement said that Iraq's rulers had "lost their credibility long ago" and that "socialists are infidels wherever they are." He didn't even mention Saddam by name.

MORE: www.philly.com...

Salon.com: War, lies and audiotape If truth is the first casualty of war, then this war's second casualty is the credibility of Colin Powell. Yesterday morning he insisted that the new tape from Osama bin Laden would show a "partnership" between al-Qaida and Iraq. He told the nation that he had a transcript of bin Laden's remarks. Understandably, however, the secretary of state didn't read from the transcript he claimed to have in his possession -- because it so clearly contradicted the headlines he was trying to create.

MORE: www.salon.com...
* * *

4. Bush/Powell LIES again about Saddam's ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction.

News Interactive: An Iraqi drone found by UN weapons inspectors is of "very primitive" design and is definitely not capable of flying 500km as suggested by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Jane's Defence Weekly said today.

On February 5, Powell told the UN Security Council that the Iraqis possessed a drone that could fly 500km, violating UN rules that limit the range of Iraqi weapons to 150km. " There is no possibility that the design shown on 12 March has the capability to fly anywhere near 500 kilometres," drones expert Ken Munson said on Jane's website (jdw.janes.com...). " The design looks very primitive, and the engines -- which have their pistons exposed -- appear to be low-powered," he said.

MORE: www.news.com.au...

Originally from the NY Times: AL TAJI, Iraq -- To hear senior Bush administration officials tell it, Iraq's latest pilotless drone has the potential to be one of Saddam Hussein's deadliest weapons, able to deliver terrifying payloads of chemical and biological warfare agents across Iraq's borders to Israel or other neighboring states. It could even, they say, be broken down and smuggled into the United States for use in terrorist attacks. But viewed up close yesterday by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce.

"In any case, he and other officials said, the vehicle could not be controlled from a distance of more than 5 miles, in good weather, since its controllers tracked it "with the naked eye."

MORE: seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Boston Globe: Duct tape reinforced by aluminum foil held together the black and white drone's balsa wood wings. The wooden propellers and tiny engines were fastened to a well-worn fuselage, fashioned from the fuel tank of a larger aircraft. The words ''God is Great'' were hand painted in red ink on both sides. Perched on a sawhorse at a military research base 20 miles north of Baghdad, the drone looked more like a large school science project than a vehicle capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons. Iraqi officials denied the airplane had any strategic use.

More: www.boston.com...

PLEASE say that you're 16 years old or something, I don't know, AUTISTIC. IF not, I really hope you take the time & do some sort of searching ( both board & soul ) , before you post that weak syncophant drivel again.

The Democrats' examples of supposed lies are just their own spin.

Mistakenly relying on forged documents or faulty intelligence is not lying, it's a mistake.

I would suggest you stop your personal attacks since they are against the rules of this site...accusing someone as being mentally disables id not only an attack but is also in very poor taste.

....The prose by which we pillory a sycophant sets apart this very site. To set autism & the naivety of youth as insults is a bit of a stretch.....toughen up or stop listing a NY address....it's embarassing.