Mul,
And you would remain a staunch supporter/apologist if it was Clinton instead of Bush who did this the last 6 years?

YES / NO (circle one)

Pledging loyalty for a person rather than the office has potentially negative repercussions for a democracy.

Sherwood

Did what?...If I recall Clinton's presidency was about the economy and nothing, including character, mattered. Clinton failed and Bush was left to clean up his mess. Bush inherited a recession, overbloated corporations like Enron, and Osama running loose in Afghanistan. Bush turned around a quickly sinking economy and decided that enough was enough regarding terrorism.

My loyalty is to truth and not seditious hate speech that fuels world distrust, gives aid and comfort to the enemy and demoralizes troops in harm's way...This is what the critics offer, seditious hate speech bordering and crossing the line into the realm of treason.

A constant, ruthless person like Rice deserves nothing less than constant, ruthless attacks.

Yes, she has a morals problem of the first order.

I'm also for truth and not seditious hate speech, but allow me to clarify. If instead of Bush the last 6 years, Clinton was POTUS and he had the same policies, waged the same war in Iraq, thought, acted and functioned as Bush did during Katrina, Supreme Court nominations, UAE port sales, NSA eavesdropping, etc., etc. etc., would you support Clinton (or anyone else) in the same manner?

YES / NO (circle one)

Sherwood

Clinton would have bombed Serbia, been credited with all good in Katrina and given an award for civil rights, nominated far-left Justices without nary a peep out of Republicans, gave his buddies in Dubai (FYI, they have given 100s of thousands to the Clinton liebury) a better deal than Bush (the press would have provided cover fire), the NSA wiretapping would be hailed as brilliance, etc., etc., etc.

Clinton was not Bush. Clinton bombed Serbia after the WTC-1, Kobar, Embassy bombings and the Cole. Clinton appointed an ACLU head to the Supreme Court, Clinton actually used the IRS and illegally obtained 900 FBI files on his enemies, Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese Military for campaign contributions, and as a piece de resistance he pardoned corporate crooks, cocaine traffickers and terrorists.

Really no comparison, but to answer your question..NO...Clinton could not be trusted, Bush has proven himself a man of his word.

Patsy-speak for "she is black."

I guess my attempt to set up this "what if" example failed to communicate, but thanks for the gaze into your crystal ball. Let's get back to reality.

I'll gather from your response it's not the actions of a president that count - it's really George Bush, the man you admire, although I suspect the term, "admire", is too soft a description. By minimizing the very same Bush scenarios as performed by a different person (Clinton, joe blow or whoever), you're showing more loyalty to a person than to your country or its institutions. I'm glad there's only 31.99% of us who agree with you. Hang in there.

Sherwood

Ignoring your racist attempt at race baiting, she has a morality problem related to her being one of the key engineers of the Bush'ist policies of bloodletting and failure in the middle east.

That alone disqualifies her as fit for any office, much less one more powerful than she holds today.

What he said. It has to do with a politician's tolerance for "collateral damage" as a result of their foreign policy. And you cannot use Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein as your barometer of moral relativism, it stands alone. As in, "by itself".

This is something that war-mongering, revenge-seeking idiots will never understand, unfortunately. Great leaders know the costs and avoid war obsessively, at the risk of being called names by the Ford vs. Chevy crowd.

Like Neville Chamberlain, hero of the left? He did avoid war at all costs, how did that work out for him?

You are a racist, but nice try at deflecting that reality.

Condoleeza Rice has been a party to the greatest liberation of people's from oppression. She has contributed to success the world could never have imagined regarding dealing with terrorism and constructing a respresentative form of government where tyranny previously existed.

By any honest evaluation Iraq has been successful. By any honest evaluation it has been undermined and sabotaged by you and your leftist friends bent on regaining power for surely evil purposes (when you lie to harm America, you are evil).

Clinton's pussy pullout of Mogadishu is precisely what motivated Osama. Appeasement was no longer an option; 9-11 proved this more than convincingly. Saddam had connections with terrorist organization including al qaeda. Saddam had WMD, planned on reconstituting them and planned on seeing them delivered to America.

You know Denis, if Clinton was doing his job this never would have happened. Just think if Clinton said "yes" when the Sudan offered bin laden on a silver platter?...Just imagine if after WTC-1, Kobar and Cole, after Clinton promised to bring to justice the terrorists, he did?

You see, Denis, this could have all been prevented with a little focus, quite easily. Instead Bill Clinton chased skirts, bombed innocent Serbians liberating Kosovo for KLA al qaeda related terrorists and pardoned corporate crooks, cocaine dealers and terrorists for $$$$$$$...and constructed the intel failure that allowed 9-11 to go down (Jamie Goerlick)...and what was Sandy Bergler stealing from the National Archives, Denis????

Bush is doing his job and nobody could have expected better. He is being undermined by you and your ilk, and when the fruits of your sabotage come to roost, you blame Bush.

Where is the "civil war", Denis?...Was that just another PR product launch by the Democrat party and their media buddies?

Nul,

Your quote says everything "when you lie to harm America, you are evil".

I would say when you lie, you are evil.

The stakes are higher when our men are in harm's way, or credibility is being called into question from within our own country (which feeds world distrust), and we are trying to deal with people who want us dead...It is a greater kind of evil the left are perpetrating.

Sorry, late to the thread, but I about spewed my coffee all over the screen when I read this one...

Translation: We liberals are for equality for all and being non-judgemental. Except, of course, if you are a conservative Black Woman who we think might just be a lesbian. LOL

So tell me how you view Iran Contra hearings? It was evil to be airing these deeds or evil for doing them?

It was evil for the Democrats to undermine a sitting President trying to conquer the evil of communism. It was evil for the Democrats to put through the Boland Amendment so Reagan could not fund the pro-American Contras. Daniel Ortega was funded by the USSR and defended by the American Democrats.

The evil was on the part of the Democrats, criminalizing Reagan's strategy of ending the Cold War and supporting pro-American Democratic regimes in south America.

don't they ever turn off the neo-con kool-aid fountain?