NationStates Jolt Archive

*But now that republicans are trying to excite the religious zealot vote to win a Senate seat in Florida poor Terri Schiavos lifeless body gets turned into a political football

As Texas governor, George W. Bush signed a law that allows hospitals to pull the plug on critically ill patients despite family objections - the kind of court-authorized move the president and fellow Republicans are challenging in the Terri Schiavo case.

Just last Tuesday, the Texas law resulted in what some call a U.S. first, when a Houston hospital cut off life support for a badly deformed 6-month-old baby after his mother lost a court challenge. The baby died almost immediately.

Democrats and even some medical ethicists are citing the 1999 Texas law to charge that Bush's position in the Schiavo case is hypocritical compared to the stance he took as governor.

"The Texas statute that Bush signed authorized the ending of the life, even over the parents' protest. And what he's doing here is saying, 'The parents are protesting. You shouldn't stop [treatment],'" said John Paris, a noted medical ethicist at Boston College.

A hospital association lawyer who helped draft the Texas law said it would have allowed for the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube if all legal challenges had been exhausted because the Texas law would make her husband the primary decisionmaker.

The White House said yesterday that Bush's position is consistent, and that the Texas bill focused on expanding the rights of the critically ill and their families to prevent hospitals and doctors from denying life-saving treatment.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush vetoed 1997 legislation that would have put into law Texas hospital policies that gave families virtually no protections and as little as 72 hours to find alternate care after a hospital decided to stop treatment.

Under the 1999 law, another White House official said, Bush expanded that time to 10 days and authorized family members to seek extensions in court but acknowledge that if the challenges fell short, "under the legislation, the hospital still could authorize the end of life."

In Texas, Bush's position also had the backing of Texas Right to Life, whose national headquarters, along with other Christian conservatives that make up a key part of the Republican base, has taken up the fight to prolong Schiavo's life.

Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at National Right to Life Committee in Washington, said he represented the Texas chapter in more than two dozen negotiating sessions over the 1999 bill.

He acknowledged that the legislation could allow a hospital to move to end a patient's life over the family's wishes but denied that was inconsistent with Bush's positions now, or his own group's as well.

"Does this mean that we or Gov. Bush are hypocrites because we supported that law? The answer is, it was the best we could achieve at the time, better than the existing state of the law. It's not what we wanted to achieve, it's not the right decision. But when we have the ability to change the law to be more protective, certainly we would do that," Balch said.

Elizabeth Sjoberg, an associate general counsel with the Texas Hospital Association, helped draft the 1999 law, and said it added various procedures to ensure that a patients' final wishes regarding care were carried out, while still protecting the hospital if it determined that care should be stopped for terminal or irreversibly ill patients.

Newsday.Com

I heard about that. But there were some circumstances surrounding that law, which you apparently did not say. It was something about it would drive insurince rates up like 20 percent. I really don't remember.

Interesting. A clear cut case of blatant hypocrisy. Always good!

I heard about that. But there were some circumstances surrounding that law, which you apparently did not say. It was something about it would drive insurince rates up like 20 percent. I really don't remember.
that may be true- but it only goes to show that Bush is just another phoney politican so he has no business speaking about "moral Issues" especially when hes willing to lie to start preemptive wars. Hes about as "prolife" as Genghis Khan

meh, bush also said something in the 70s about supporting abortion.

Wow, a cut&paste from newsday, NOT democracynow!

Wow, a cut&paste from newsday, NOT democracynow!
newsday is my local paper

I really think Bush is overstepping a political boundary here, and it's where he doesn't belong.

When Clinton "lied", the Republicans couldn't stop tarring/feathering him.
When Bush lies, or commits outright hypocrisy, he gets a free pass
What's with the double standard?

When Clinton "lied", the Republicans couldn't stop tarring/feathering him.
When Bush lies, or commits outright hypocrisy, he gets a free pass
What's with the double standard?

You call this thread among the thousands of others criticizing bush as a free pass??

Sorry, i didn't specify enough. I implied that the more mainstream media, many democrats, and moderate republicans never called bush on things like this. Thanks for helping me

Wow, a cut&paste from newsday, NOT democracynow!


it's a step up.

perhaps once he reaches CNN, he can take a bit of a step sideways and write an interesting comment on his own

When Clinton "lied", the Republicans couldn't stop tarring/feathering him.
When Bush lies, or commits outright hypocrisy, he gets a free pass
What's with the double standard?


could not agree more

especially when hes willing to lie to start preemptive wars.

He said nothing different than what Clinton did when he bombed bagdad. Learn your history. Pay attention in school.

When Clinton "lied", the Republicans couldn't stop tarring/feathering him.
When Bush lies, or commits outright hypocrisy, he gets a free pass
What's with the double standard?
The double standard seems to be the lack of critical reasoning for sake of emotional reasoning.
Hypocrite ...
hypo = without
crite = critique/critical (thinking/reasoning)
The problem is that way too many of the powerseekers who are in power right now have no interest in critical reasoning (as far as integrity goes, in case it isn't that obvious)
It doesn't unfortunately mean that they cannot also be sneaking, backstabbing amoral pieces of sh*t. Obviously.

it's a step up.

perhaps once he reaches CNN, he can take a bit of a step sideways and write an interesting comment on his own
informed people boycott CNN--its part of the Beast media

He said nothing different than what Clinton did when he bombed bagdad. Learn your history. Pay attention in school.
But Clinton didnt get us stuck in any quagmires the way Bush did

He said nothing different than what Clinton did when he bombed bagdad. Learn your history. Pay attention in school.
Try again. Baghdad. With an h. Learn your spelling. Pay attention in school.
And just exactly are the circumstances of your "example"?

But Clinton didnt get us stuck in any quagmires the way Bush did

Go pull your head out of the sand you stupid pinko commie. Do you pride yourself in telling outright lies and sheer stupidity?

The double standard seems to be the lack of critical reasoning for sake of emotional reasoning.
Hypocrite ...
hypo = without
crite = critique/critical (thinking/reasoning)
The problem is that way too many of the powerseekers who are in power right now have no interest in critical reasoning (as far as integrity goes, in case it isn't that obvious)
It doesn't unfortunately mean that they cannot also be sneaking, backstabbing amoral pieces of sh*t. Obviously.
that describes Bush to a T.
As Gov of Texas he once laughed in the face of a woman on deathrow pleading for mercy. Its hard for me to believe that a President who has the same compassion for human life as Josef Stalin could possibly be "prolife" in any real sense of the word. When will Bush supporters stop seeing what they want to see and start seeing the reality of the monster who decieved them?

Remember kids: When a Democrat does this, he/she is a "flip-flopper".

Skapedroe, we have discussed this before. Re: your first post:

Cut and Paste is spamming.
Slapping down someone else's words requires no thought and is not a debate.


If you want to talk about this, and I know you do, you must:

1) State your considered opinion. This means: a developed paragraph at least.
2) Use quotations from the article to support your opinion.
3) LINK TO THE SOURCE. Newsday.com is not properly sourcing. What day? What year? What section? What URL?

You must follow the same rules everyone else does about sourcing, or it will be considered spamming. I am not going to warn you for this thread, but I AM going to say that you should correct it here, and that any more threads you write need to follow those guidelines. Otherwise, they WILL be closed.


Thank you.

Go pull your head out of the sand you stupid pinko commie. Do you pride yourself in telling outright lies and sheer stupidity?
a totally contained and defenseless country like Iraq would never have even been on the rader screen if it didnt have oil lets cut the bullcrap

What's ironic is that oil is more expensive now than it was when saddam was in power. More interesting is that Hallibutron stock has rallied constantly since the war, and reap the greatest profit.

Bush is not being hypocritical. He has always believed in the right to die for people without health insurance. It is, however, your patriotic duty to remain alive as long as the hospital is making money off your vegetative ass. It's good for the economy.

Skapedroe, we have discussed this before. Re: your first post:

Cut and Paste is spamming.
Slapping down someone else's words requires no thought and is not a debate.


If you want to talk about this, and I know you do, you must:

1) State your considered opinion. This means: a developed paragraph at least.
2) Use quotations from the article to support your opinion.
3) LINK TO THE SOURCE. Newsday.com is not properly sourcing. What day? What year? What section? What URL?

You must follow the same rules everyone else does about sourcing, or it will be considered spamming. I am not going to warn you for this thread, but I AM going to say that you should correct it here, and that any more threads you write need to follow those guidelines. Otherwise, they WILL be closed.


Thank you.
It was in yesterdays Newsday exactly

Hypocrasy is the standard in Washington, don't worry about it...

Hypocrasy is the standard in Washington, don't worry about it...
aye

Remember kids: When a Democrat does this, he/she is a "flip-flopper".

Stolen right out of my mouth.

It was in yesterdays Newsday exactly

Then link to it exactly. Newsday.com is not sufficient.

Try again. Baghdad. With an h. Learn your spelling. Pay attention in school.
And just exactly are the circumstances of your "example"?

What an amazingly relevant post.

What an amazingly relevant post.
...yes....?
Well, the words are all there, now we just have to get them in the right order.

that describes Bush to a T.
As Gov of Texas he once laughed in the face of a woman on deathrow pleading for mercy. Its hard for me to believe that a President who has the same compassion for human life as Josef Stalin could possibly be "prolife" in any real sense of the word. When will Bush supporters stop seeing what they want to see and start seeing the reality of the monster who decieved them?
I remember that coming up last summer. Also, sorta off-topic, i just watched "The Yes Men" and it was kinda funny. The beginning mentioned their gwbush website (after GATT.org) and how when the cocaine got brought up Bush had his adorable little "My Pet Goat" look and, while not directly answering the question about how far is too far for the Yes Men site, he instead called them garbage men and started his air of superiority and subsequent public disclosure of his philosophy on restricting freedoms.

Bush is not being hypocritical. He has always believed in the right to die for people without health insurance. It is, however, your patriotic duty to remain alive as long as the hospital is making money off your vegetative ass. It's good for the economy.
I'd laugh if a part of me weren't snarling and sobbing.
Good post.

Remember kids: When a Democrat does this, he/she is a "flip-flopper".
I heard/read somewhere that the republicans actually purchased the trademark for that word so the word CAN'T be used in publications or on TV broadcasts about themselves without paying royalties.
...maybe that was in The Onion .... no wait, that was Bill Gates and binary code. Owning the copyright, et cetera.

And just exactly are the circumstances of your "example"?

Are you kidding me? Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90's with stealth bombers to "destroy Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities."

Of course when a fellow democrat says it, it isn't lying, but when Bush says it, he's a horrible person.

Oh...and Skapedroe...Iraq was hardly defenceless. It had one of the largest militaries in the world.

Are you kidding me? Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90's with stealth bombers to "destroy Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities."

Of course when a fellow democrat says it, it isn't lying, but when Bush says it, he's a horrible person.

Oh...and Skapedroe...Iraq was hardly defenceless. It had one of the largest militaries in the world.


No-everyone forgot about the vauted million man army and the dreaded Republican guard. Now, the US is the bad guy.

You call this thread among the thousands of others criticizing bush as a free pass??


Uh...outside of blogs, Air America radio, and a few INDEPENDENT PUBLICATIONS... fuck yeah, Bush and the Republicans have had a free pass on ALL major media outlets.

that may be true- but it only goes to show that Bush is just another phoney politican so he has no business speaking about "moral Issues" especially when hes willing to lie to start preemptive wars. Hes about as "prolife" as Genghis Khan

And 3 pages for you to whine about Bush!!

Since you never gave your opinion of the situation and just used this article to continue your personal attacks on Bush.....

Do you support taking Terri Schiavo off "life support" or not?

Are you kidding me? Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90's with stealth bombers to "destroy Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities."


Ah yes, i didn't ask what Clinton did, read again the post. What were the circumstances?
Try again.

But Clinton didnt get us stuck in any quagmires the way Bush did

Really, how many US troops are still in Bosnia? Home by Christmas, eh?

And Somalia went exactly as planned, huh?

Ah yes, i didn't ask what Clinton did, read again the post. What were the circumstances?
Try again.

ok smartass...I gave you the circumstances. To quote you, "try again."

ok smartass...I gave you the circumstances. To quote you, "try again."
That didn't take long to brandish the integrity of your responses - you gotta make ASSumptions about my posterior. You might simply not be following this thread or my question. If you can't do it, go ahead and rile your self up about it another time, you know that's the way to react if you don't get your way. Then you can make more ASSumptions and feel big and that's okay i guess since a lot of right wing f*ckheads have the same lack of character in their descriptions of things and their behaviour.
You didn't give me the circumstances of Clinton's decision. You simply stated what he did. That's why i posted it.
Try again or consider moving out of an at least semi-intellectual discussion.
Are you kidding me? Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90's with stealth bombers to "destroy Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities."
Okay, covered that. Your quote isn't the circumstances, your quote is a statement encapsulated in quotes to canvass presumably another quote. If there was some kind of report or something that relied on you'd be on different footing. As it stands, this quote from you is just that, a quote from you.

Of course when a fellow democrat says it, it isn't lying, but when Bush says it, he's a horrible person.
There are MANY MANY THREADS that cover the legitimacy of who did what here. The difference in what Clinton did and what Bush did was what? And their public statements upheld under WHAT SCRUTINY (note:circumstances qualifiying the action)? For what? That's the point. That's what i mean by "circumstances". Do you get it now? Or is it flaming time?

When Clinton "lied", the Republicans couldn't stop tarring/feathering him.
When Bush lies, or commits outright hypocrisy, he gets a free pass
What's with the double standard?

Bush didn't do it Under Oath in a Court of Law, which is a Felony under the Law...

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

I'm probably wasting my time here as you all seem to be having a really good time with ANOTHER Bush bash...but here goes.

There have been numerous conflicting opinions on Terri Schiavo's actual condition. Her husband has never allowed more than an MRI study of her brain, and that was years ago. New and better tests are now available, but he has never allowed her to have any of those. He has also forbidden her to have any therapy to see if she would respond. Her "blood" family questions this denial of treatment to Terri and they suspect him of far worse. President Bush and a majority of Congress, which was a bipartisan effort (not just Republican), asked that food and hydration be provided to sustain her life so that advanced medical testing could be done, medical questions answered with evidence rather than speculation, and so that serious ethical questions as to her husband's unbiased guardianship could be examined. As Bush said when explaining his position, if an error is made, it is better to err on the side of life. Terri is not brain dead, she is not on life support (meeting nutritional needs is standard for everyone), and several professionals of note have expressed their belief that she could improve greatly if therapy were provided. Why are you questioning his politics for trying to secure a fair decision is Terri's case? This isn't a political issue. This is a question of ethics.

I'm probably wasting my time here as you all seem to be having a really good time with ANOTHER Bush bash...but here goes.

There have been numerous conflicting opinions on Terri Schiavo's actual condition. Her husband has never allowed more than an MRI study of her brain, and that was years ago. New and better tests are now available, but he has never allowed her to have any of those. He has also forbidden her to have any therapy to see if she would respond. Her "blood" family questions this denial of treatment to Terri and they suspect him of far worse. President Bush and a majority of Congress, which was a bipartisan effort (not just Republican), asked that food and hydration be provided to sustain her life so that advanced medical testing could be done, medical questions answered with evidence rather than speculation, and so that serious ethical questions as to her husband's unbiased guardianship could be examined. As Bush said when explaining his position, if an error is made, it is better to err on the side of life. Terri is not brain dead, she is not on life support (meeting nutritional needs is standard for everyone), and several professionals of note have expressed their belief that she could improve greatly if therapy were provided. Why are you questioning his politics for trying to secure a fair decision is Terri's case? This isn't a political issue. This is a question of ethics.

I have also heard it said that no Doctors are saying there is any hope...

I have also heard of MANY cases in which Doctors had little or no Hope, only to "cite" some "Miracle" that changed the circumstances...

So are we not allowing for the possibility of some "Miracle" in her case? I'm pretty sure anyone who truly Loves her may wish to hold such Hope.

Faith isn't hoping that God does, it knows that God WILL.

Regards,
Gaar

I have also heard it said that no Doctors are saying there is any hope...

I have also heard of MANY cases in which Doctors had little or no Hope, only to "cite" some "Miracle" that changed the circumstances...

So are we not allowing for the possibility of some "Miracle" in her case? I'm pretty sure anyone who truly Loves her may wish to hold such Hope.

Faith isn't hoping that God does, it knows that God WILL.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, there are a number of doctors who believe that she could relearn several skills, including the ability to talk. No one is under the illusion she will ever be more than mentally handicapped, but intelligence is not a requirement of a happy life.

Your quote sums it up very nicely.

Actually, there are a number of doctors who believe that she could relearn several skills, including the ability to talk. No one is under the illusion she will ever be more than mentally handicapped, but intelligence is not a requirement of a happy life.

Your quote sums it up very nicely.

Yeah, I have LIVED some of that personally...

I was born with a Birth Defect which had me basically crippled by the time I was 5. I had Major Surgery that year and when it was all over I was told I would be able to walk, but not likely well and that running would be something I wouldn't likely ever do again.

By the time I was in High School I was on the Track Team running the cross-country and was the 660 leg of the 1320 Medley. We went to State and finished 3rd in the Medley while I finished 7th in the cross-country...

So take a Doctors opinion with a grain of Salt... And never lose FAITH in yourself and your Loved ones.

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, I have LIVED some of that personally...

I was born with a Birth Defect which had me basically crippled by the time I was 5. I had Major Surgery that year and when it was all over I was told I would be able to walk, but not likely well and that running would be something I wouldn't likely ever do again.

By the time I was in High School I was on the Track Team running the cross-country and was the 660 leg of the 1320 Medley. We went to State and finished 3rd in the Medley while I finished 7th in the cross-country...

So take a Doctors opinion with a grain of Salt... And never lose FAITH in yourself and your Loved ones.

Regards,
Gaar

I almost hate to admit it, but I'm an American Idol fan. I stand in awe every week to the talent that those young people have. I'm also a great music lover. It's interesting to note that one of the 10 finalists this year...don't know his name, but he has blond hair, glasses, and looks a little like Clay Aiken...had a tracheotomy when he was little. The doctors told his folks that we would probably never be able to talk. Little stink not only talks, but he can sing!!

In my case, I was seriously injured in a wreck with a drunk over 15 years ago. For the first 30 days following the accident, I wasn't expected to live. After that, I guess they figured I was too mean to kill, and they started putting my legs back together. They told me I would always need a cane to walk after that. Shoot...I not only don't need a cane, I don't even limp!

I almost hate to admit it, but I'm an American Idol fan. I stand in awe every week to the talent that those young people have. I'm also a great music lover. It's interesting to note that one of the 10 finalists this year...don't know his name, but he has blond hair, glasses, and looks a little like Clay Aiken...had a tracheotomy when he was little. The doctors told his folks that we would probably never be able to talk. Little stink not only talks, but he can sing!!

In my case, I was seriously injured in a wreck with a drunk over 15 years ago. For the first 30 days following the accident, I wasn't expected to live. After that, I guess they figured I was too mean to kill, and they started putting my legs back together. They told me I would always need a cane to walk after that. Shoot...I not only don't need a cane, I don't even limp!

And some don't believe in "Miracles"... :rolleyes:

Fortunately, they don't have to. :D

I am happy to hear that you have done so well. Seems we Humans are a bit more "resilient" than most give us credit for.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, there are a number of doctors who believe that she could relearn several skills, including the ability to talk. No one is under the illusion she will ever be more than mentally handicapped, but intelligence is not a requirement of a happy life.

Your quote sums it up very nicely.

Yes. That number is approximatly zero.

If you only count credible doctors then that number drops to zero.

When you've got a cranium full of jell-o about the only skills you can ever hope to learn are occupying space and weighing. Not measuring the weight of stuff mind you, just exerting a downward force on the Earth.

Yes. That number is approximatly zero.

If you only count credible doctors then that number drops to zero.

When you've got a cranium full of jell-o about the only skills you can ever hope to learn are occupying space and weighing. Not measuring the weight of stuff mind you, just exerting a downward force on the Earth.

Really!?!?

Then perhaps you should tell that to the Doctor I saw on Television last night, he HAS examined her, and feels if proper test were allowed to be done that they would find a lot more than Doctors are attesting to today.

He was also quite amazed that Doctors would be willing to give the opinions they have in the matter since they have been unable to perform tests that would give them much better data to work with in deciding any of these issues.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes. That number is approximatly zero.

If you only count credible doctors then that number drops to zero.

When you've got a cranium full of jell-o about the only skills you can ever hope to learn are occupying space and weighing. Not measuring the weight of stuff mind you, just exerting a downward force on the Earth.

Following is the report issued by court appointed Dr. Hammesfahr, a Nobel nominee in 1999.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Hammesfahrexam.htm

Also, didn't Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, issue a report this week questioning the vegetative state diagnosis?

It's a sad state of affairs when a person has to prove their worth to live.

It's a sad state of affairs when a person has to prove their worth to live.

Amen!

When Bush signed the law, he probably wasn't thinking that it'd be used for life or death. All that it said was that hospitals had the final say in treatment. He probably thought it was something like a doctor being able to prescribe medicine that a family did not want a person to take. He's not a hypocrite, just not omniscient.

Yes. That number is approximatly zero.

If you only count credible doctors then that number drops to zero.

When you've got a cranium full of jell-o about the only skills you can ever hope to learn are occupying space and weighing. Not measuring the weight of stuff mind you, just exerting a downward force on the Earth.
You're wrong there. If you know your law of gravity, you would know that she is also attracting the Earth very slightly towards her.
But it is still only 2 things she can do, because she's not exerting a downward force, the Earth is pulling her towards it.
I guess you could add carbon dioxide producer and poop factory to the list.


Back to Bush - on CNN, it said that 83% of those polled were against the US govt getting involved in the Schiavo case. This certainly goes someway to restoring my faith in the intelligence of the US populace. The same poll showed Bush's approval rating had fallen. And surprises, surprise, what happens? He's now distancing himself from the case.
Truly a flavour of the month politician. But then again, what politician isn't?

When Bush signed the law, he probably wasn't thinking that it'd be used for life or death. All that it said was that hospitals had the final say in treatment. He probably thought it was something like a doctor being able to prescribe medicine that a family did not want a person to take. He's not a hypocrite, just not omniscient.
You really didn't have to go any further than the first 9 words of your opening sentence there, in order to explain Bush's actions. :p

Are you kidding me? Clinton bombed Iraq in the 90's with stealth bombers to "destroy Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities."

Of course when a fellow democrat says it, it isn't lying, but when Bush says it, he's a horrible person.

Oh...and Skapedroe...Iraq was hardly defenceless. It had one of the largest militaries in the world.

In 1991 Iraq had the 6th largest army in the world. Though after Gulf I, I doubt that was true anymore.

Bush didn't do it Under Oath in a Court of Law, which is a Felony under the Law...

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, he learned his lesson by watching Clinton. He won't say anything under oath.

In 1991 Iraq had the 6th largest army in the world. Though after Gulf I, I doubt that was true anymore.

4th, 6th before the recent one...

The questions we are faced with in the turmoil of the modern world are far beyond what anyone should have to deal with. Many of us, most of us have never had to make a choice for the life or death of another human being. Now many people are morally judged on their personal opinion on the fate of Terri.

Is it right to end the life of this vegitated woman who has been in this state for years, recognizing that there is no hope for her recovery? Is it right to allow her to live happy without sentience, creating the unavoidable strife of her husband, and the endless sorrow of her parents, knowing that eventually they won't be able to take care of her forever, and must hand her over to some sort of institution anyway? We are no longer making choices with black and white answers, we can not look at things this way any longer. We have to find the appropriate shade of grey that will hurt the least, for no answer will bring happiness for everyone.

This is not a question of who is the evil liberal, or the conservative pig. It is about finding proper middle ground.


As for the bill passed here in Texas, I believe the way it was used was morally wrong. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who signed it, or even the bill itself is morally wrong. It's about the interpretation.

Example, the U.S. Constitution states that all men are created equal. Hypocritical, for many of the signers of the constitution owned slaves. Some will interpret the meaning, as the signers ment it, was that all white men are created equal. While this might be the case, it does not mean that the spirit of this particular aspect of the Constitution as it was in 1776 should still hold true in 2005.

Also, in the defence of the Texas State Legislature, they probably approved it without reading it. They tend to do that alot.

Example, they signed a resolution honoring Albert de Salvo. To quote the Resolution "This compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology."

Albert de Salvo is better known as The Boston Strangler.

Also, in the defence of the Texas State Legislature, they probably approved it without reading it. They tend to do that alot.

Example, they signed a resolution honoring Albert de Salvo. To quote the Resolution "This compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology."

Albert de Salvo is better known as The Boston Strangler.

I love my home states lege. Not even Ringling Bros. has that many clowns. And our governors are priceless. We're so glad we could bring Dubya to the rest of the world. :p

Also, in the defence of the Texas State Legislature, they probably approved it without reading it. They tend to do that alot.

Example, they signed a resolution honoring Albert de Salvo. To quote the Resolution "This compassionate gentleman's dedication and devotion to his work has enabled the weak and the lonely throughout the nation to achieve and maintain a new degree of concern for their future. He has been officially recognized by the state of Massachusetts for his noted activities and unconventional techniques involving population control and applied psychology."

Albert de Salvo is better known as The Boston Strangler.
Putting aside the humour (do you have a source for this, cause it's very funny!), I don't think it's much of a defence for the Texas State Legislature, that they approved laws without reading them first. What the hell are they paid for? That's gross incompetence in my opinion.

Putting aside the humour (do you have a source for this, cause it's very funny!), I don't think it's much of a defence for the Texas State Legislature, that they approved laws without reading them first. What the hell are they paid for? That's gross incompetence in my opinion.

How the hell do you think the Patriot Act got passed?

I'm probably wasting my time here as you all seem to be having a really good time with ANOTHER Bush bash...but here goes.

There have been numerous conflicting opinions on Terri Schiavo's actual condition. Her husband has never allowed more than an MRI study of her brain, and that was years ago. New and better tests are now available, but he has never allowed her to have any of those. He has also forbidden her to have any therapy to see if she would respond. Her "blood" family questions this denial of treatment to Terri and they suspect him of far worse. President Bush and a majority of Congress, which was a bipartisan effort (not just Republican), asked that food and hydration be provided to sustain her life so that advanced medical testing could be done, medical questions answered with evidence rather than speculation, and so that serious ethical questions as to her husband's unbiased guardianship could be examined. As Bush said when explaining his position, if an error is made, it is better to err on the side of life. Terri is not brain dead, she is not on life support (meeting nutritional needs is standard for everyone), and several professionals of note have expressed their belief that she could improve greatly if therapy were provided. Why are you questioning his politics for trying to secure a fair decision is Terri's case? This isn't a political issue. This is a question of ethics.

<sigh>

Denial of reality appears to be rampant on this issue, I'll repeat yet again a post I made in another thread

I know that people really hate facts or law in these forums because they get in the way of uninformed opinions.

Nonetheless, I'm really sick of those who think they know what is best for a complete stranger, Terri Schiavo, based on rumor, innuendo, and libel.

Here are some facts:

1. Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

2. Ms. Schiavo would wish to die under these circumstances.

3. Ms. Schiavo is not being allowed to die merely because her husband wishes it or because he is her guardain. She is being allowed to die because that would be her wishes.

4. Ms. Schiavo's parents have gotten an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 & #2. Federal and state courts have reviewed this case multiple times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 & #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.

As many will resist these facts, let me document them:

The following consists of excerpts from the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/flsct92304opn.pdf) on Sept. 23, 2004 (with my edits in brackets):

In May of 1998, eight years after Theresa lost consciousness, Michael petitioned the guardianship court to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures. By filing this petition, which the Schindlers opposed, Michael placed the difficult decision in the hands of the court.

After a trial, at which both Michael and the Schindlers presented evidence, the guardianship court issued an extensive written order authorizing the discontinuance of artificial life support. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Theresa Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that Theresa would elect to cease life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own decision. This order was affirmed on direct appeal, see Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 177.

...

The severity of Theresa’s medical condition was explained by the Second
District as follows:
The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa’s brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.

Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true
miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an
unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her
and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for
many years.

In affirming the trial court’s order, the Second
District concluded by stating:
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 180.

[Although the guardianship court’s final order authorizing the termination of
life-prolonging procedures was affirmed on direct appeal, the litigation continued because the Schindlers began an attack on the final order. After several court and appellate decisions against the Schindlers, they were granted a new hearing.]

The Second District permitted the Schindlers to present evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the judgment was no longer equitable and specifically held:
To meet this burden, they must establish that new treatment offers sufficient promise of increased cognitive function in Mrs. Schiavo’s cerebral cortex—significantly improving the quality of Mrs. Schiavo’s life—so that she herself would elect to undergo this treatment and would reverse the prior decision to withdraw life-prolonging procedures.
Id.

The Second District required an additional set of medical examinations of Theresa and instructed that one of the physicians must be a new, independent physician selected either by the agreement of the parties or, if they could not agree, by the appointment of the guardianship court. See id. at 646.

After conducting a hearing for the purpose set forth in the Second District’s
decision, the guardianship court denied the Schindlers’ motion for relief from
judgment. See In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV). In reviewing the trial court’s order, the Second District explained that it was “not reviewing a final judgment in this appellate proceeding. The final judgment was entered several years ago and has already been affirmed by this court.” Id. at 185-86. However, the Second District carefully examined the record:
Despite our decision that the appropriate standard of review is
abuse of discretion, this court has closely examined all of the evidence
in this record. We have repeatedly examined the videotapes, not
merely watching short segments but carefully observing the tapes in
their entirety. We have examined the brain scans with the eyes of
educated laypersons and considered the explanations provided by the
doctors in the transcripts. We have concluded that, if we were called
upon to review the guardianship court’s decision de novo, we would
still affirm it.
Id. at 186.

Finally, the Second District concluded its fourth opinion in the Schiavo case with the following observation:

The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.

But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo’s right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. . . . It may be unfortunate that when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life. We have previously affirmed the guardianship court’s decision in this regard, and we now affirm the denial of a motion for relief from that judgment.

...

Theresa’s nutrition and hydration tube was removed on October 15, 2003.
On October 21, 2003, the Legislature enacted chapter 2003-418, the
Governor signed the Act into law, and the Governor issued executive order No. 03-201 to stay the continued withholding of nutrition and hydration from Theresa. The nutrition and hydration tube was reinserted pursuant to the Governor’s executive order.

On the same day, Michael Schiavo brought the action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court. Relying on undisputed facts and legal argument, the circuit court entered a final summary judgment on May 6, 2004, in favor of Michael Schiavo, finding the Act unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Theresa. Specifically, the circuit court found that chapter 2003-418 was unconstitutional on its face as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and as a violation of the right to privacy, and unconstitutional as applied because it allowed the Governor to encroach upon the judicial power and to retroactively abolish Theresa’s vested right to privacy.

In the linked opinion, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision on Sept. 23, 2004.

During the course of the litigation, 3 separate guardians ad litem – independent individuals with no stake in the case – have been appointed by the courts. 2 were attorneys and one was a doctor. The last was requested by Gov. Jeb Bush. All have concluded that Ms. Schiavo would wish the life-preserving measures to cease under her current circumstances and have testified to that conclusion in the trial and various hearings.

There has been an extensive trial, a separate extensive hearing at which multiple qualified physicians testified, and at least 7 separate appeals. This includes appeals that have been heard by the Florida Supreme Court twice, that have gone to the US Supreme Court now twice, and have been decided by both federal and state courts.

Here are links to copies of just some of the orders and opinions in the case:
Order by Judge Greer setting Oct. 15, 2003 as the date when removal of the feeding tube can begin (Sept. 17, 2003) (http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Order%20of%20Death%20091703.pdf)
Order by Fla. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denying motion for a stay (March 16, 2005) (http://www.2dca.org/schiavo/order.pdf)
Order setting March 18, 2005 as the day to withdraw Schiavo's feeding tube (Feb. 25, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/22505ctord.pdf)
U.S. Supreme Court Order rejecting a request to consider arguments on the case (March 17, 2005) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/031705pzr.pdf)
US District Court Order denying the request of Terri Schiavo’s parents to reinsert a feeding tube into their daughter (March 22, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf)
11th Circuit Opinion In 2-1 vote, a federal appeals court denies a legal request to reinsert a feeding tube into Terri Schiavo (March 23, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305opn11.pdf)
The 11th Circuit Order denying Terri Schiavo’s parents request for a rehearing (March 23, 2005) (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305norhrng.pdf)

After a full trial, a second extensive hearing, dozens of motions, numerous court rulings, numerous appeals, etc., the courts have uniformly held that, by clear and convincing evidence, Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegatative state and would wish to die under these circumstances.

Based on the stray hearsay you've read or heard you disagree factually with all of these judges, guardians ad litem, etc., who have no personal stake in the matter, are trained to decide these questions, and have heard extensive facts -- including the presentations of Ms. Schiavo's parents. Tough. Your opinion is unreasonable.

Following is the report issued by court appointed Dr. Hammesfahr, a Nobel nominee in 1999.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Hammesfahrexam.htm

Also, didn't Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, issue a report this week questioning the vegetative state diagnosis?

It's a sad state of affairs when a person has to prove their worth to live.

Lest anyone be fooled. Dr. Hammesfar testified before the courts. He is a fake.

He testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending him for the prize. But Bilirakis is not qualified to make a valid nomination under the Nobel rules. So Hammesfar is not really a Nobel nominee. He is, instead, a liar.

In February 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine ruled that he violated state law by charging a patient for services that were not provided (Finding of Fact No. 71, PDF p. 40). The board fined Hammesfahr $2,000, placed him on probation for six months, and ordered him to pay approximately $52,000 in administrative costs and to perform 100 hours of community service. The board also ruled that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients, using a procedure he has claimed could help Terri Schiavo, was "not within the generally accepted standard of care."

An October 23, 2002, Tampa Tribune article reported that during an October 2002 hearing, George Felos, attorney for Schiavo's husband, Michael Schiavo, questioned Hammesfahr's qualifications, noting that he "charges cash for treatments and advertises himself as a nominee for a Nobel Prize based on a letter his congressman wrote to the Nobel committee." An October 25, 2003, St. Petersburg Times article noted that Judge Greer, who presided over the hearing, called Hammesfahr a "self-promoter" who "offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no test results to support his claim" that he had treated patients worse off than Terri Schiavo.

In October 2001, a Florida appellate court ruled that five doctors should examine Terri Schiavo, all of whom testified at the October 2002 hearing, along with her attending physician. Hammesfahr was one of two doctors chosen by Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler. Two others were chosen by Michael Schiavo, and one was appointed by the court. An October 17, 2002, Philadelphia Inquirer article noted that while Hammesfahr and the other doctor chosen by the Schindlers claimed that Terri Schiavo could be helped, her attending physician, the court-appointed physician, and the doctors selected by Michael Schiavo all stated that her condition would not improve.

Following is the report issued by court appointed Dr. Hammesfahr, a Nobel nominee in 1999.

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/Hammesfahrexam.htm

Also, didn't Dr. William Cheshire, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, issue a report this week questioning the vegetative state diagnosis?

It's a sad state of affairs when a person has to prove their worth to live.

Sorry, that site doesn't exactly sound neutral. Are you sure her parents didn't start that site?

Look at this friggin' nut case.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-brain-damaged-woman-arrest,0,3434584,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines
Man Tries to Steal Gun to 'Rescue Schiavo'


Wedding Services Search


By Associated Press

March 25, 2005, 6:07 PM EST

SEMINOLE, Fla. -- A man was arrested after trying to steal a weapon from a gun shop so he could "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo," authorities said.

Michael W. Mitchell, of Rockford, Ill., entered Randall's Firearms Inc. in Seminole just before 6 p.m. Thursday with a box cutter and tried to steal a gun, said Marianne Pasha, a spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Mitchell, 20, told deputies he wanted to "take some action and rescue Terri Schiavo" after he visited the Pinellas Park hospice where she lives, Pasha said.

Mitchell was in custody at the Pinellas County jail Friday after a judge set his bail at a total of $120,500 for the four charges of armed robbery, grand theft, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and criminal mischief.

The feeding tube that has kept Schiavo alive for more than a decade was removed March 18 over objections from her parents. Schiavo's husband has said his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially.

Doctors have said she would probably die within a week or two of the tube being pulled.

Randy McKenzie, the owner of Randall's Firearms, said Mitchell pulled out the box cutter and broke the glass on a couple of display cases.

"He told me if I wasn't on Terri's side then I wasn't on God's side, either," McKenzie told The Associated Press.

McKenzie said he then pointed his own gun at Mitchell and ordered him to lie on the ground. But Mitchell fled out the store's back door before police arrived, he said.

It was not known if he had a lawyer.

Seminole is about 5 miles west of Pinellas Park.
IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH MY OPINION, YOU ARE AGAINST GOD! *bang*

It would appear that The Cat-Tribe cleaned up here rather nicely.
*bows*

It would appear that The Cat-Tribe cleaned up here rather nicely.
*bows*

Thank you. I appreciate the encouragment. I needed it. :D

And 3 pages for you to whine about Bush!!

Since you never gave your opinion of the situation and just used this article to continue your personal attacks on Bush.....

Do you support taking Terri Schiavo off "life support" or not?
Yes--I do believe Schiavos body needs to be liberated from the christian taliban that holds it hostage

Really, how many US troops are still in Bosnia? Home by Christmas, eh?

And Somalia went exactly as planned, huh?
Clinton ended the Bosnian holocaust without one US casualty whereas Bush/Cheney killed and dismembered thousand of US soldiers as a sacrifice on the altar of corporate greed

Bush didn't do it Under Oath in a Court of Law, which is a Felony under the Law...

Something about that you don't understand?

Regards,
Gaar
so Clinton lying about legal conduct under oath is worse then Bush being clever enough not to take oaths cause the lies he commits kills tens of thousands of people?

You really didn't have to go any further than the first 9 words of your opening sentence there, in order to explain Bush's actions. :p
Contrary to popular opinion, Bush thinks.

Contrary to popular opinion, Bush thinks.
...on the level of a 3 year old

so Clinton lying about legal conduct under oath is worse then Bush being clever enough not to take oaths cause the lies he commits kills tens of thousands of people?

Yes, it may have been legal conduct, but the fact he was being charged with Sexual misconduct made that "legal conduct" pertinent to the charges he was being accused of, was it not?

So the President can lie in order to be found not guilty of Sexual misconduct, in your mind?

And then, after you have answered that question, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out the "lie" the President told? TIA

Regards,
Gaar

As long as the thread is about about hypocricy I thought I'd post this. Sorry if someone already did, it is hard to keep up with the Schiavo threads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28delay.html

WASHINGTON, March 27 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader and a driving force behind the Congressional effort to spare Terri Schiavo's life, was confronted more than 16 years ago with his own agonizing end-of-life dilemma and agreed to withdraw life support from the patient, his father, according to a report Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper reported that Mr. DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay, 65, a drilling contractor, was severely injured in 1988 in an accident at his home in Canyon Lake, Tex.

He was testing a backyard tram he had built to carry family and visitors down a 200-foot slope toward the lake when the tram jumped the track, throwing him headfirst into a tree.

The account said that Mr. DeLay suffered multiple injuries, including kidney failure, and that his wife, Maxine, and their other children made the initial decision to withhold kidney dialysis and other treatments when it became clear that he could not recover. Representative DeLay, at the time in his third term in the House, did not object, the newspaper's report said.

As long as the thread is about about hypocricy I thought I'd post this. Sorry if someone already did, it is hard to keep up with the Schiavo threads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28delay.html

WASHINGTON, March 27 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader and a driving force behind the Congressional effort to spare Terri Schiavo's life, was confronted more than 16 years ago with his own agonizing end-of-life dilemma and agreed to withdraw life support from the patient, his father, according to a report Sunday in The Los Angeles Times.

The newspaper reported that Mr. DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay, 65, a drilling contractor, was severely injured in 1988 in an accident at his home in Canyon Lake, Tex.

He was testing a backyard tram he had built to carry family and visitors down a 200-foot slope toward the lake when the tram jumped the track, throwing him headfirst into a tree.

The account said that Mr. DeLay suffered multiple injuries, including kidney failure, and that his wife, Maxine, and their other children made the initial decision to withhold kidney dialysis and other treatments when it became clear that he could not recover. Representative DeLay, at the time in his third term in the House, did not object, the newspaper's report said.
Thanks for posting. It helps make more sense of that imbecile's actions. I can appreciate his attitude a little better knowing this.

-also, to Urantia and whomever-
Why should i or anyone other than the affected families give a flying f*ck about sexual indiscretions of anyone else, other than the people i have sexual congress with? He's not my moral leader. That's not the position of responsibility the president holds, and any president that thinks it is assumes way too much, to the extent of megalomania. Why did some of my taxpayer money go to that investigation? Why? I could give a f*ck less. It shouldn't have cost me, but due the apparent overwhelmingly out-of-whack priorities of the republican party, that action will stand out forever as the hanging anecdote for a morally defunct group of irresponsible hypocrites to gnaw on and laugh heartily about. Again, how much tax money was spent on that? They should have focused on Clinton's other problems a lot earlier - if there was enough meat something could've been done. But there wasn't. Shallow, puerile. Nice shootin', Tex.

Everybody knows Delay is just trying to recast his image as the really really really Pro Life nutball, rather than the corrupt scumbag should probably be in jail with all his friends and who would probably have been kicked out of Congress had all his Republican buddies not saved his ass from a real investigation into the long list of his abuses of power.

Everybody knows Delay is just trying to recast his image as the really really really Pro Life nutball, rather than the corrupt scumbag should probably be in jail with all his friends and who would probably have been kicked out of Congress had all his Republican buddies not saved his ass from a real investigation into the long list of his abuses of power.
Amen to that. On a similar note (not that i'm a fan, persay)
Molly Ivins (Bushwhacked!) wrote for week of March 12, 2005 ...
"Let's not blame Texas for Tom DeLay"
*snip*
In another example of ethical rot, DeLay took a $100,000 check from the Corrections Corporation of America, a company that runs private prisons in Texas and has a 20-year history that includes mismanagement and abuse. CCA wants the Texas Lege, over which DeLay exercises considerable sway because he's a money conduit, to privatize the prisons. And that check? Made out to DeLay's children's charity, the DeLay Foundation for Kids. Barf.

Anothe quality that makes DeLay an un-Texas pol is that he's mean. By and large, Texas pols are an agreeable set of less-tha-perfect humans and quite often well-intentioned. As Carl Parker of Port Arthur used to observe, if you took all the fools out of the Lege, it would not be a representative body any longer. The old sense of collegiality was strong, and vindictive behavior - punishing pols for partisan reasons - was simply not done. But those are Tom DeLay's specialties, his trademarks. The Hammer is not only genuinely feared in Washington, he is, I'm sorry to say, hated.

He has been admonished three times by the House Ethics Committee, so did he clean up his act? Nope, he went after the chairman of the ethics committee, threw him out, got the rules changed and then stacked the committee with his close allies. "The ethics process in the House of Representatives is in total shambles," said Fred Wertheimer, a longtime D.C. crusader on ethical issues.

The Houston Chronicle, DeLay's home paper, has been vigilant about tracking his lapses. The paper recently summed up his M.O.: "When in danger of losing, simply rewrite the rules in the middle of the game to make it impossible for the other side to win."
*snip*

Maybe a little drama but she put it well enough.

I have nothing to add to this thread, but I wanted to say this: it's "hypocrisy" people! It's not hypocracy, it's not hypocricy, it's not any of the other mutilations of the word, it's fuggin' hypocrisy. Thanks, I'll show myself the door.

Fair enough. I have a suspicion that's a qualification of the title "Forum Boredom".

In short: Jeb Bush makes hypocrisy a form of art. :)

*grins* The Clinton issue is easy to address. Clinton wasn't a Republican. Bush is. Therefore, Bush can (and has and will) lie on anything that makes his (read: his parties and puppetmasters') agenda run like clockwork.

Apparently, Clinton having oral with an intern is more evil than Bushy sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths for no (valid) reason. *shrugs*

Too bad Bush couldn't run for a third term. :(

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/law/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/chronology.html


So, they're pardoning Jack Kevorkian, right? I mean at least his patients were able to state their wishes clearly.....

Clinton ended the Bosnian holocaust without one US casualty whereas Bush/Cheney killed and dismembered thousand of US soldiers as a sacrifice on the altar of corporate greed

There are still US troops in Bosnia = not ended.

And I notice you conveniently forgot to respond to the 19 US servicemen who were killed - two of whom were dragged throught the streets - as a direct result of Clinton's decision to deny equipment and reinforcements which were specifically asked for by commanders on the ground. THAT'S murder in my book.

*grins* The Clinton issue is easy to address. Clinton wasn't a Republican. Bush is. Therefore, Bush can (and has and will) lie on anything that makes his (read: his parties and puppetmasters') agenda run like clockwork.

Apparently, Clinton having oral with an intern is more evil than Bushy sending thousands of soldiers to their deaths for no (valid) reason. *shrugs*

Too bad Bush couldn't run for a third term. :(

Clinton lied under oath. Bush made a decision based on the best intelligence available at the time. Remember (or research it if you don't) that the world's leading intelligence agencies indicated that Saddam still had WMD's in-country at the time the UN resolution was signed. Britain, Russian, and US intelligence, not just US intelligence. The decision to go to was was correct given that intel, and after-the-invasion information showing the intelligence was wrong does not change the rational for war into a lie. Any critical, objective look at the information available at the time the decision was made would have led to the same outcome.

Even John Kerry said:
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior."

This is excerpted from the text of a speech Kerry gave (http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp) on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record. For Bush's detractors to say he lied is a blatantly obvious attempt to assasinate his character, and ignores the Clinon Administration's policy and words to exactly the same effect as those of the Bush Administration. The only difference is that Bush had the balls to back up those words with actions, and the inneffectual Clinton administration did not.

[EDIT] Before anyone complains about the source, here is a link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r105:1:./temp/~r105U9eTuq:e0:) to the actual Congressional record of the speech. If you actually read it, you'll notice Kerry says a lot of the same things Bush said regarding dealing with Saddam, the UN response, and why dealing with Saddam now rather than later is the best course of action.