DUBYA'S COMMENTS

[imported_mega]

bingo. In my opinion there were more important issues at the time, at least more pressing issues.

Do you think he will seek morals or just a swing toward his version of the law?

[smarty]

I'm going with swing towards his version of the law. . .

[CoeburnCane]

[ QUOTE ]
i admit i don't know if he is moral or not and you may be right but just to flat out say the man fakes his morality for his own political agenda to me is wrong. I'm not saying he is perfect but I don't wanna call him a hypocrit either

[/ QUOTE ]

If it walks like a duck...well...you know the rest. I don't know how moral or immoral the guy is either...I do know that like most politicians on both sides of the aisle he's most likely corrupted by lobbies and campaign donations. The correlation is that he's got agendas that relate back to the political party he represents, so he's not always out for the moral good. If we were out for the moral good, then things would have been taken care of by now by his ability to shape the way this country is governed--but as spuds pointed out, I think morality has gotten worse and some of it is due to the absolute stance and lack of action Bush and his administration has had.

[ QUOTE ]
What I disagreed with you on was the order in which corruption takes place.


[/ QUOTE ]

I feel that corruption, by nature, has no order. It is random. All you can do is go to the root of the different types of corruption and try to cut them off there. It's not a president is elected and corruption ensues, it's not corrupt forces put someone into office--I think it's a circle of the combination of the two. Different types of corruption put different elected officials into office to carry out corrupt agendas. The root is the corruption. With less corruption from lobbying & illegal campaign funding, there is a politician who is less beholding to a particular agenda and is more likely to come in and do what is right.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you feel the war in Iraq was completely wrong given the policy measures of the current administration...I hear this over and over but still never hear a valid explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

WMD's. Very simple. I'll agree with you and everyone else that Hussein needed to be taken out as the dictator of Iraq, but not under the premise that he had WMD's pointed at the U.S...I agree with the ends, but not the means that were used to bring us to it.

[imported_biggamesjames]

I think each voter has to determine for themselves the weight of all the issues with morality included. If some don't think its important then they are entitled to that thought...others may find it very important and cast their vote accordingly. I don't want to tell others what role morality should play in who they vote for public office. If you throw it out the window completely are you really going to be better off?

[smarty]

I completely agree to each his own, to some people defense and foreign affairs is the most important, but don't allow that to overshadow all other issues either. Your vote should never rely solely on one single issue. Just the whole term morals or morality is pretty questionable, so we're the only ones who can judge whether or not a person's actions are or are not moral in our eyes. I just think in the day to day morality doesn't play as much of a part of a President's daily administrative duties as does other issues, I'm not saying it is not important though.

[imported_biggamesjames]

"WMD's. Very simple. I'll agree with you and everyone else that Hussein needed to be taken out as the dictator of Iraq, but not under the premise that he had WMD's pointed at the U.S...I agree with the ends, but not the means that were used to bring us to it."

To me the focus on WMD's was greatly exaggerated by the media. Did we believe he had WMD's? Yes. Did most of the entire world believe he had WMD's? Yes. Do we still believe he had WMD's just because we didn't find any? Yes, and his own countrymen believe the same...after all he had used them before without a doubt. Was WMD's the only reason we went to war? NOOO. The ultimate reason we went to war with Iraq is because they failed to comply with the 14th and final U.N. resolution to disarm and disclose or face serious consequences. Saddam said he was disarmed but flat out refused to disclose in the way of U.N. inspectors. In short he chose to face the "serious consequences"...I don't really see what other option he was giving us...I mean not complying with 14 U.N. resolutions is quite a few right?...not to mention continually firing on U.S. and British aircraft in the no fly patrolling zone.

[imported_biggamesjames]

I agree in principle with what you are saying...I don't really think the majority of the american people was just thinking about that single issue when they voted for bush however...i think while many may have considered it as important i feel the american public is much to intelligent to view it as the only important issue...i think alot of factors were considered by most.

[ QUOTE ]


-but as spuds pointed out, I think morality has gotten worse and some of it is due to the absolute stance and lack of action Bush and his administration has had.


[/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't look for any bolts of lightning from any party

[ QUOTE ]
How do you feel the war in Iraq was completely wrong given the policy measures of the current administration...I hear this over and over but still never hear a valid explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

WMD's. Very simple. I'll agree with you and everyone else that Hussein needed to be taken out as the dictator of Iraq, but not under the premise that he had WMD's pointed at the U.S...I agree with the ends, but not the means that were used to bring us to it.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not to the point that I think Bush didn't know better than he admits, but I could still stand just a little better job running the show.

[imported_biggamesjames]

"I'm not to the point that I think Bush didn't know better than he admits, but I could still stand just a little better job running the show."

Better job in what way? Any specific suggestions?