Have you ever visited Pearl Harbor?
Any day you go there, you will see Japanese tourists visiting, eyes red, tears streaming down their faces at what was done in their name. Most of them are too young to have had anything to do with WWII, but they acknowledge that what was done by their nation was wrong.
This hardly makes Japan a weak or wimpy nation, rather it makes it a more noble one.
The problem with you, steamed, is that while you are good a turning out spin, you have no respect for reality or for nobility of spirit. You are an empty wordmeister who prattles on and on about morality and security and being tough. Yadda yadda yadda
*GASP!!!*
Steamed, are you turning your back on your beloved BHO???? I'm SHOCKED!
Is there no room on your list of great presidential liars for MISTER WMD?
Oh, I forget, that was an 'intelligence failure' rather than an intentional falsehood, for those of you who prefer incompetence over dishonesty. Of course with Bush & Cheney you had the best of both worlds, but that would be the log in your own eye, the one you can't see.
So, then you don't deny that Obama is a liar? Why aren't you calling for his impeachment just like you did for Bush then? I'd say your partisanship is showing.
I don't remember calling for Bush's impeachment. He earned it many many times over in my opinion, but there was never a chance that it would actually happen, so what would be the point of calling for it?
Most of our presidents have used spin and even outright lies to further their political agendas. FDR did it a lot, but the modern kings of that were LBJ, a dem and Nixon a republican.
Clinton was more of a word parser than an outright liar, while the GW Bush bunch favored the BIG LIE, especially in the run up to the war.
With so much dishonesty in our history, I don't think lying by itself is enough to qualify a guy for an impeachment.
I don't remember calling for Bush's impeachment.
You did.
Most of our presidents have used spin and even outright lies to further their political agendas. FDR did it a lot, but the modern kings of that were LBJ, a dem and Nixon a republican.
That is not an excuse for Obama doing the same thing. If you feel it is, then why doesn't Bush get the same consideration you give Obama?
Clinton was more of a word parser than an outright liar...
With so much dishonesty in our history, I don't think lying by itself is enough to qualify a guy for an impeachment.
You may not feel like lying should be enough for perjury (although it is interesting to see how quickly your attitude has changed), but lying is definite cause for impeachment, provided you have something called proof (which you seriously lack in all your accusations of Bush lying). Bill Clinton was actually impeached specifically for perjury! How could you ever claim that Bill Clinton isn't really a liar, but George Bush definitely is? Essentially, you are fully partisan, and lying is only bad "if the other guy does it". The Republicans are just as guilty of this as you are, but that doesn't excuse you, it just means you are just as bad as they are.
I hate to have to keep correcting you guys, but Bill Clinton was never accused of perjury.
He certainly never committed perjury.
If you doubt the accuracy of my words, congratulations, you have been propagandized!
Using the legal word in an intentionally sloppy non-legal way was part of the propaganda effort against Clinton, but it was never accurate.
People who know what the very narrow word means in a legal setting knowingly used the word way out of context to confuse and enrage people.
You could look it up if you want, but while Bubba was accused, correctly, of intentionally misleading the court with his testimony, what he did never got anywhere near the standard required to call it perjury.
I hate to have to keep correcting you guys, but Bill Clinton was never accused of perjury.
He certainly never committed perjury.
That is a outright lie. Bill Clinton was brought before the Senate of the United States on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. That is what is written down in the formal papers held by Congress. He also stated under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, which he did. You need to read the link I provided you. There is no definition, neither legal nor in general usage that describes the actions of Bill Clinton as anything other than perjury. Describing it as a propaganda attack on Bill Clinton is conspiracy theory stuff. I'm going to call you out on this one, Gramps. I have public records on my side. What do you have? Either present proof to back up your claims, or you are a liar.
steamed
After a apology for the civilian deaths that the US caused in Dresden, Germany, we have plans for an Obama trip to Japan to describe the sadness the US feels for killing Japanese pilots at Pearl Harbor and for sinking Japanese warships at Midway.