<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bush: We&#8217;re Not Winning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/</link>
	<description>Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:29:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170215</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:02:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170215</guid>
		<description>I agree -- and I&#039;m not here to defend Clinton&#039;s recklessness -- however I think that the precedent of deposing a sitting President regarding an extramarital affair, if applied in the future, will lead to many more unhappy consequences -- this is simply not something which ought to be in the public sphere to be exploited for partisan gain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8212; and I&#8217;m not here to defend Clinton&#8217;s recklessness &#8212; however I think that the precedent of deposing a sitting President regarding an extramarital affair, if applied in the future, will lead to many more unhappy consequences &#8212; this is simply not something which ought to be in the public sphere to be exploited for partisan gain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170207</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:54:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170207</guid>
		<description>Oh, but one last thing, Peter - it just so happens that Paula Jones was right - I don&#039;t care who financed her lawsuit, she was telling the truth, and he wasn&#039;t...that&#039;s a talking point, and you should let that part of it go, in my humble opinion...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, but one last thing, Peter &#8211; it just so happens that Paula Jones was right &#8211; I don&#8217;t care who financed her lawsuit, she was telling the truth, and he wasn&#8217;t&#8230;that&#8217;s a talking point, and you should let that part of it go, in my humble opinion&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170206</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:53:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170206</guid>
		<description>Well, at least you came as far in my direction as to say half-truths...it&#039;s a start!...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, at least you came as far in my direction as to say half-truths&#8230;it&#8217;s a start!&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170112</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170112</guid>
		<description>I think it is a big deal when the President lies, whether under oath or not.  However, I think the subject and the context of the lie is far more important than whether it is under oath or not.

FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Kennedy, and Reagan were known adulterers (although with Reagan the aggrieved spouse was Jane Wyman, not Nancy).  However, none of them were forced to testify about their extramarital life under oath.  Moreover, the context was a civil suit paid for by his political enemies.  It was a way to use the legal process to force a gotcha moment.  I think it is naive to believe that had the other Presidents been forced to swear on a Bible that they would have readily admitted their misdeeds.

While I do not wish to get into an argument about whether Bush and Cheney lied, it is beyond dispute that they played fast and loose with the facts.  Sending troops to battle is the most important decision a President makes, and it is an absolute moral imperative that he be candid and honest about the reasons for war and the risks that we face.  

In my opinion, the half-truths which Bush and Cheney made to lead us to war are far worse than Clinton&#039;s deceits, regardless of whether or not they were under oath.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it is a big deal when the President lies, whether under oath or not.  However, I think the subject and the context of the lie is far more important than whether it is under oath or not.</p>
<p>FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Kennedy, and Reagan were known adulterers (although with Reagan the aggrieved spouse was Jane Wyman, not Nancy).  However, none of them were forced to testify about their extramarital life under oath.  Moreover, the context was a civil suit paid for by his political enemies.  It was a way to use the legal process to force a gotcha moment.  I think it is naive to believe that had the other Presidents been forced to swear on a Bible that they would have readily admitted their misdeeds.</p>
<p>While I do not wish to get into an argument about whether Bush and Cheney lied, it is beyond dispute that they played fast and loose with the facts.  Sending troops to battle is the most important decision a President makes, and it is an absolute moral imperative that he be candid and honest about the reasons for war and the risks that we face.  </p>
<p>In my opinion, the half-truths which Bush and Cheney made to lead us to war are far worse than Clinton&#8217;s deceits, regardless of whether or not they were under oath.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170026</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:27:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170026</guid>
		<description>Well, I&#039;m not going to lie, I supported impeachment for Clinton - I&#039;ll admit now that it was a tactical mistake, though I still think it&#039;s an extremely big deal when the President of the United States lies &lt;em&gt;under oath&lt;/em&gt;...but I also think one of the reasons Bush won&#039;t be impeached is because the Democrats learned from the backlash that accompanied the impeachment of Clinton...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#8217;m not going to lie, I supported impeachment for Clinton &#8211; I&#8217;ll admit now that it was a tactical mistake, though I still think it&#8217;s an extremely big deal when the President of the United States lies <em>under oath</em>&#8230;but I also think one of the reasons Bush won&#8217;t be impeached is because the Democrats learned from the backlash that accompanied the impeachment of Clinton&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170018</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:21:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170018</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think it is impeachable either -- but I also think Clinton should never have been impeached -- you can&#039;t run the country by government-by-impeachment.

My point is only that those who rushed to impeach Clinton should ask themselves what the consequence should be if the same standards were applied to George Bush.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it is impeachable either &#8212; but I also think Clinton should never have been impeached &#8212; you can&#8217;t run the country by government-by-impeachment.</p>
<p>My point is only that those who rushed to impeach Clinton should ask themselves what the consequence should be if the same standards were applied to George Bush.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170012</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:15:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170012</guid>
		<description>See, I knew you&#039;d go back to it was only about sex...in any event, I don&#039;t buy your premise that Bush lied to get us into war...as you know, we&#039;ve trod that ground exceedingly well...as for lying to a reporter? Hardly impeachable...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See, I knew you&#8217;d go back to it was only about sex&#8230;in any event, I don&#8217;t buy your premise that Bush lied to get us into war&#8230;as you know, we&#8217;ve trod that ground exceedingly well&#8230;as for lying to a reporter? Hardly impeachable&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peter</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-170006</link>
		<dc:creator>peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 01:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-170006</guid>
		<description>I think that there is a world of difference between lying about a consensual affair and telling Americans that we are winning in Iraq when he (and the rest of us) know that we are not winning.  If a President tells the American public that we are winning the war, it should be taken at face value, and not as a dodge to trick people to vote Republican.  

I think that trying to keep the Lewinsky mess private is wrong but understandable.   However, portraying ambiguous intelligence as unequivocal in order to gain support for an invasion of Iraq is unforgivable.   Cheating husbands have lied since time immemorial, but claiming (as Cheney did) that “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” and using it as cassus belli is unprecedented in living memory.  The consequences of Clinton’s deceit is unimportant, but the consequences of the administration’s deceit has been tragic.

If you believe that Clinton should have been impeached for lying about Monica Lewinsky, then surely you must also think that Bush should also be subject to impeachment for his untruths. 

As for Rumsfeld:  he did not have to state something he knew to be wrong (and whose falsity would be clearly evident in a matter of days).  He could have dodged the question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that there is a world of difference between lying about a consensual affair and telling Americans that we are winning in Iraq when he (and the rest of us) know that we are not winning.  If a President tells the American public that we are winning the war, it should be taken at face value, and not as a dodge to trick people to vote Republican.  </p>
<p>I think that trying to keep the Lewinsky mess private is wrong but understandable.   However, portraying ambiguous intelligence as unequivocal in order to gain support for an invasion of Iraq is unforgivable.   Cheating husbands have lied since time immemorial, but claiming (as Cheney did) that “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” and using it as cassus belli is unprecedented in living memory.  The consequences of Clinton’s deceit is unimportant, but the consequences of the administration’s deceit has been tragic.</p>
<p>If you believe that Clinton should have been impeached for lying about Monica Lewinsky, then surely you must also think that Bush should also be subject to impeachment for his untruths. </p>
<p>As for Rumsfeld:  he did not have to state something he knew to be wrong (and whose falsity would be clearly evident in a matter of days).  He could have dodged the question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-169995</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-169995</guid>
		<description>Referring to the Rumsfeld thing, that is...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Referring to the Rumsfeld thing, that is&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://informedspeculation.com/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/comment-page-1/#comment-169994</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://decision08.net/2006/12/19/bush-were-not-winning/#comment-169994</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d prefer Bush would not fall into his reflexive defensive optimism, but he&#039;s only human, in other words...what is he supposed to say when he&#039;s looking for a personnel move, but not every piece is in place?...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d prefer Bush would not fall into his reflexive defensive optimism, but he&#8217;s only human, in other words&#8230;what is he supposed to say when he&#8217;s looking for a personnel move, but not every piece is in place?&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
