Scandals

[Dylflon]

I just realized something that really bothers me.


Bush went into a war with false information about WMDs and connections with Al Quaida. (And don't say the war was about Iraqi liberation because it wasn't until later in the war that they declared that as the motive.)

Now, Bush has led America into a war that has cost many lives and billions of dollars.


ISN'T THIS ONE OF THE BIGGEST SCANDALS EVER!?


But it isn't treated like a scandal.

Hell, Clinton got grilled like hell because he slept with someone other than his wife. They were talking impeachment.

But Bush still has support even though all this crap has gone down.

It was a god damn field day for everyone in the media when Clinton cheated on his wife. It was a giant Clinton bash and everyone loved it.

But why aren't more people in the media rousing rabble about Bush's renegade cowboy endeavours in the middle east? Is it fear of being yanked off the air?

Howard Stern's cancellation proved that Republicans have huge influence in current media. And several other shows have been cancelled because of things that the Republican party didn't agree with. One that comes to mind is Politcally Incorrect.

So, should this Bush thing have been blown much more out of proportion like the Clinton scandal was? Is the Republican influence in media holding this back?

What are your thoughts?

Which is the bigger scandal?

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Not being treated like a scandal? Every liberal I've talked to has treated it like a scandal. What is your point?

[Typhoid]

No, Its not being treated like a scandal.


I dont see news on TV about "the Bush scandal", but youre still hearing them about "the Clinton scandal"

And i think by far the Bush scandal totally surpases the Clinton scandal. Because in the Clinton scandal, he didnt declare war on a country, spend billions of dollars, and have the whole thing result in tons of deaths.

[Ace195]

How is this a scandal ? Bush told the world that there "might" be WMD in the middle east with the current intel he showed. That violated the peace accord that saddam had signed which gave bush every right to fuel this war. He got the Joint Chief's Approval Before he moved. what he didn't do was get the UN's No big ****in whoop though the un is just a big bunch of pink commie pussies... Anyways the reason clinton was being impeached was that he LIED to a grad jury otherwise known as PURJURY. (can't spell sorry) It's not that he slept around hell I give him props for that but he should have the balls to say yep I tapped that. Bush's wasn't a scandal, Clinton on the other hand his was because of him telling those lies I.E. " I never had sexual relations with that woman."

[Bond]

Oh god... here we go again...

Keep in mind we live in nice little democracies, we have no idea what real "scandals" are.

And isn't your main news channel in Canadian controlled by the government?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Bond

And isn't your main news channel in Canadian controlled by the government?

First off, it might be, but then again, so are American ones. And if American ones arnt, then neither is ours.


Where i live we get like, 20 News channels, and 15 of them are American.

[Professor S]

Ok, let me remind you of the FACTS concerning the war.

1) Bush did not lie, he acted on what is now considered bad information (which I think is a concession to the media, and not really the truth). This same information that the entire world, including the previous president Bill Clinton used had and believed.

2) In 1998 the UN, YES THE UN, found 10,000 pounds of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq that mysteriously dissappeared. Iraq then showed no evidence they were destroyed and broke 16 UN regulations trying to keep the UN out. A better question is, WHERE ARE THEY?

3) The US found trailers used to make chemical weapons in Iraq after the war. These were overlooked by the media as they had no weapons inside them and the excuse was that they were used to make food. This is a plausible argument (even if highly unlikely due to Saddam's record) until you realize that each of these trailers had fermentation tanks. Unless they were for making beer, they were made for processing and distributing chemical weapons.

4) It was discovered after the war that Saddam was negotiating with North Korea not just for nuclear materials, but an ENTIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS MISSILE SYSTEM.

There's more, but I think this is enough. Now speaking of scandals, did Bill Clinton have intelligence that made him get a BJ in the oval office? No, he was horny. At least Bush had his reasons.

[Neo]

I question whether or not there was any real information linking Iraq to al qaeda. In fact I think saddam and osama actually hate each other.

Now I won't dispute the fact that the world is a much safer place without saddam in it. And it may have been worth the cost in lives and money to dispose of him. That guy was a freakin lunatic who killed his own people and exploited his country. His sons were sadistic bastards also and I'm glad they're dead. Though the Bush administration grabbed at straws to make a case for WMD and an osama-saddam link as justification for war.

I don't believe for a second that Kerry will be soft on terrorism. Edwards made that clear last night (he's almost as charismatic a speaker as Clinton). Plus Kerry actually has functioning brain cells and would likely restore other nation's faith in our leadership.

Clinton lied under oath but he should never have been asked those questions in the first place. His personal life is his own damn business. Though it would have been fun if he had just come out and said "yeah I stoked her, what of it?"

[Neo]

And it's not that I think rich people are evil, it's just that they're allowed to get away with too much because they are rich and powerful. I'm all about having money, but money and power easily corrupt. It's simplistic but usually true. The CEO of my company may pay my salary directly but all that money ultimately comes from the consumers I sell to. He would have nothing without people like me.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

If all you Canadians watch is American news... and you still hate the war... then how is the American news promoting the war? As you can see from what you watch, American media is just against the war as any other, but has the decency not to display corpses more than once a day.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Rumpelstilzchen

If all you Canadians watch is American news... and you still hate the war... then how is the American news promoting the war? As you can see from what you watch, American media is just against the war as any other, but has the decency not to display corpses more than once a day.

The only reason why a lot of Canadians watch American stations is because the US is the dominant influence here (just as it is in every other modern country). No one cares about Canadian TV here, let alone Canadian news. The only time I actually heard people (my age at least) talk about Canadian news was when there was the issue of decriminalizing weed. Go figure.

And what's with the "Canadians hate the war"? I know a lot of people that are for it. And not every Canadian on this board hates the war either. I don't at least, somewhat anyway, I see two sides to the war in Iraq. In fact, I'd say there are just as many Canadians for the war than Americans (in proportion, that is, not in actual numbers... which may not be a lot considering a lot of people are liberal). Canada has liberal people, do does America.

And I don't know what you guys are talking about when you say CBC shows all the corpses. Even if it does... what happens in war is real. Death and blood is that reality.

[Joeiss]

I don't think CBC is too graphic....

CBC is great though. I love watching Newsworld too. I watch CNN too because honestly, America is just more interesting right now.