You didn't claim that Clinton didn't lie. But you basically said that you would rather have a president that lied about a blow job than one who lied to start a war. (Trying to imply that Bush lied)



I would much rather have one who has not lied at all! I thought Clinton was an O.K. president, until that lie. When I saw how easily and convincingly he lied about this, I never trusted anything he said again, and I then questioned the truth of anything he had said previously. Trust is a very important thing for a president to have. Stating that Bush lied, in order to try to discredit Bush, is just wrong. I have heard this allegation hundreds of times from Bush haters, but no one has had any proof of this.



Since there is absolutely no evidence that Bush lied, and a ton of evidence that he was repeating what virtually everyone else in the intelligence world was saying at that time, I find it very irresponsible of anyone to state that they think a know liar is better than someone who has simply had an unproven allegation made against him by his opponents.



I will trust Bush, just as much as I trusted Clinton (prior to his lie being proved) until someone can prove something. Until then, calling him a liar only shows your prejudice against him.



If I alleged that Clinton was a murderer, does that mean he is worse than Bush in your eyes? Anyone can allege anything, it means nothing (other than that the person making the allegation is probably very biased) unless it is proven. Frankly, I wouldn't mind you saying that Bush is a liar, even if it wasn't proven, as long as there was some credible evidence that suggested that it probably was true. At this point, you saying Bush lied, tells me more about you than it tells me about Bush! So please, stop saying things as if they are a fact, when the evidence shows the exact opposite is most likly true.



Rodney

[ Show Entire Thread ]