Hi Gary,
O.k.--I accept that both Presidents made mistakes and yes, it is a mistake for me to say that it was only Bush who lied. So I take that back...
About the medical care--what I really mean is that if people know they are going to get a bill for $100,000 then they usually won't get medical care even though they can get it if they try and go to the right hospital. I can't speak about people who are elderly and health care and the issue about money.
I think everyone deserves affordable healtcare and am willing to pay more taxes to get it done. The amount of tax we pay as Americans is pretty low when compared to countries that have free medical care. I would also suggest to our government to stop paying gigantic amounts of money into the military.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say about medical care. First you say they get it, then you say they don't get it. It seems to me that if they actually do get medical care, whether they can afford it or not, then they get it. My mother fell into that category during the last years of her life. They kept treating her and adding amounts to the bill, but they knew that they were never going to get the money. She lived lower middle class, and died poor, but it wasn't lack of care that killed her. Compare that to ten-thousand plus seniors that died in France several years ago because nearly all of the attendants went on summer vacation and there was essentially no one to look after them.

The bottom line on health care is that it will be rationed somehow. If rationed by price, then the emphasis is still on providing the best care at the lowest price so that the people will stay a good provider. If it becomes "universal" then it is rationed by who has the longest time to wait. There are no longer any incentives to lower cost or improve service, and the system begins to break down over time. This is already occurring in Canada and England.

Hi Kevin,

With regard to Iraq on WMDs, I can see how the last link might be interpreted as President Clinton not specifically stating that he believed there were WMDs. Therefore, I submit this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/texts_and_transcripts/236858.stm

This is the full text of an announcement Clinton made, recorded by the BBC saying that yes they had them and they were a "clear and present danger to people everywhere. His answer was limited strikes. So again, Clinton stated they had them, as did many others, yet only Bush is labeled a liar. You still haven't given any reason why that should be the case. Note - The announcement recorded by the BBC also disproves your statement that it was Bush who said they were a threat to us. Clinton announced several years that they were a threat to people everywhere. I also find your use of the fact that Bush took us to war with Iraq as evidence that he knew it was a lie. It seems to me that he was the only one who took action as though he was really convinced. I mean both Clintons said they had them., yet took very mild actions considering how dark they claimed the threat was. If anything, I would say that the level of action that Bush took pointed to the fact that he was sincerely convinced, at least to the best capabilities of available intelligence.

Now, you said that the real question was "where are all those WMDs?" That's a good question. Maybe they existed and were transported to other countries. Maybe they didn't and were the result of bad intelligence. My only point in asking is the apparent double standard applied. Bush basically said the same thing the Clintons, and essentially every other major democrat said, yet he is the only one who get's labeled as "lying." Doesn't seem very fair or consistent.

Now, I do agree with you that in cases under his purview, the president has the responsibility for knowing what is really going on, but that would apply equally to Clinton. So if Bush and Clinton said the same thing under similar circumstances, than both lied.

Hi Gary, you also said the no one is denied health care because they are poor. Well, I suppose that is partially true. Stanford Hospital has a big statement at their front desk saying they will not deny someone medical care because of their inability to pay for it. However, they still have to pay for it afterwards. I don't know what someone does who makes $25,000 a year gets a bill for $100,000. Sure, they got medical care and now they will never be able to pay for it. This keeps people from getting the medical care they should have (because they can't afford it, so they won't get it).

Hi Gary,
I see your point on some of these, but if we look your first quote by Clinton:
""One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
That isn't saying (at all) that Iraq has them. Clinton states that he wants to prevent them from developing them. The development of a program does not imply that they have what they want to develop.
I know that Hussein used chemical weapons at one point. I can almost understand why Bush and the rest of the politicians wanted to go to war over this. But ultimately it is up to the President to know what is real and what isn't before sending in people who will die over this issue.
But the real question to ask is: where are all those weapons of mass destruction? We have been in Iraq for a long time, and nothing has been found. They didn't have them. It appears that they might have been trying to develop them, but that was it. Besides, who took us to war over this? Not Clinton, but Bush. It was Bush who told the world the Iraq had these weapons (they didn't) and said these weapons (that didn't exist) were a threat to us (they weren't).
That is why most people believe that Bush was lying to the world. He wanted to go into Iraq. He did, and we are still there.

Hi Kevin,

"Sometimes this happens at amusement parks, but seeing a doctor for a medical problem is a bit more serious than having to wait for a ride. I would rather have a poor person be able to see a doctor and have a bit of a wait, then them not being able to see a doctor at all. For me, that is just common sense."

Except that no one is denied care here based on being poor. On the other hand, in countries such as Britain and Canada, the wait is so long that the the survival rate for things like cancer is much lower. In short, the longer wait is what often kills them. While I agree that a longer wait may not always be an argument against the idea of universal health care, when it reaches the point where people with life threatening diseases die because others clog the system, then it certainly becomes one.

"Well, the lie was put forth by Bush, and after all he was the president at the time."

No, actually. At the time both Clintons, Gore, and Kennedy claimed without reservation that there were WMD's in Iraq, Clinton was still president. So try again - Why is it that the left only claims that Bush is the "one" who lied.

Take a look at some of these links:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

So, Dems made the claims well before Bush was in office and continued afterward, even though they supposedly had no faith in Bush. So again the question: Why do leftist insist on branding him as a "liar" when all of them were putting out the same message?

Hi (Gary?),
Hmmm. Well, the lie was put forth by Bush, and after all he was the president at the time. He was the one to send Colin Powel to the U.N.--the Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy and all the rest.
About the unverisal health care plans.--people in Australia have universal health care and there is hardly a complaint about wait time. When I was a permanent resident there I never, ever, had any problem getting into see a doctor. But here, I have to wait at least a month before I can see my own doctor. People seem to come here because there is a general impression that health care is better here--not because they have to wait. I don't believe in the argument that just because there may be long lines we shouldn't have it. Sometimes this happens at amusement parks, but seeing a doctor for a medical problem is a bit more serious than having to wait for a ride. I would rather have a poor person be able to see a doctor and have a bit of a wait, then them not being able to see a doctor at all. For me, that is just common sense.

Hey Robert,

Odd thing about a lot of places with "universal health plans." A lot of people have to wait months longer to get anything they need than they do here in the US, which is why so many people from Mexico, Canada, and Europe come to the US for health care.

Kevin,

I am curious - Why is the "WMD" thing always referred to as a lie that Bush told when he didn't say anything about it that wasn't said by both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, and every other major democrat party member? for some reason, no one on the left ever seems to mention that they were lying about it.

Hey Robert--I hope you are going to use that line in your next gig!

Seems like a bunch of Bush Loving Gay Hating, Republicans have gone off the deep end since Obama won the election, but hopefully we will have a National Health Care plan soon, so they can get the medications they so need.

:o)

Hey Justin! I find friends in all corners, although I doubt Christine would see me, a radical liberal teacher as a friend. :)
But who knows, maybe I am wrong?

I have my problems with some of Obama's policy and promises not full filled but that does not mean I hate him. But, for some one to simply gloss over the past 8 years of George Bush and the things that got us into this mess is simply mad. Kevin where do you find your friends at? :)