Ron, I do believe that the attacks are personal and unprecedented because he is a Republican, and that they would do the same to any Republican. I don't believe that a Democrat attacking a Republican or vice-versa is unprecedented, but I believe that the level of hatred that we see today behind the attacks is unprecedented. And I believe that the hatred is due more to the fact that the Democrats are not in power and calling the shots than disagreement over Bush's policies. I have never in my entire short life heard a politician of either party insinuate that the President is a traitor and a tyrant until this year. It's absolutely shameful, in my opinion, at any time, but especially during a time of war.
And I agree, where there is smoke it is always wise to investigate. But sometimes there is no fire. Sometimes it's just smoke & mirrors.
I agree, Michael. The founders would never recognize today's America.
L.R., I didn't say that Colin Powell hated Bush, I said that the State Department is flamingly anti-Bush. They would probably be "anti" any Republican President since they are infamously liberal in their ideology, and Republicans tend to be conservative in their ideology.
Next month WND will be having an expose on the Republican Party. They aren't for either pary. They just call it like they see it. I don't agree with every opinion from their multitude of commentators, of course, but I read the pros and cons on a given issue from various sources and then make up my own mind as to whom I think is giving a more balanced view of an issue. I've read this month's expose on today's Democratic Party, and I can tell you, I found it credible and frightening. I think it's time for those capable in that party, like the Joe Liebermans, to reclaim it, and again make it the Party that it used to be before it was influenced by those of a more socialist persuasion, like Kennedy and Clinton.
As for Bill Clinton, didn't he first lie under oath before the Grand Jury investigating a case of sexual harassment against him by Gennifer Flowers? My memory could be wrong, but didn't that come before any Republican led action seeking his impeachment?
And just something to think about: Why did our 'coservative' media never miss a chance to refer to Nixon as "our disgraced ex-President" because of Watergate and his subsequent resignation to avoid impeachement, and yet the media never refers to Clinton as "our disgraced ex-President" when he actually was impeached for his admitted perjury?
Brad, no matter how you slice it, I don't think there can be any doubt that there were terrorist ties to Iraq. Perhaps without verifiable ties to Saddam directly, but definitely operating freely in Iraq under the knowledge of and with connections to members of his government and surely with his knowledge, unless he didn't know what was going on in his own country, by his own ministers.
Raph, the intelligence in question was not confirmed to have been a forgery until well after the Address. Some thought it credible and others didn't prior to that. That doesn't make it a lie to have used it, although it probably shouldn't have been used if they were not 100% sure of its credibility. It certainly wasn't necessary to use it to make a case against Saddam. And the British intelligence has not been discredited, it was the CIA intel that was in question, to my understanding.