I would rather NOT derail this thread, but what specifically did Bush lie about?
I didn't say that Bush lied. Find me a quote that I was asserting that was the case. We had this discussion in another thread reverend so I don't know why you're trying to play dumb here.
Bush took the information he received he decided to act based off the information he did. WHY he did it is impossible to say if you are not George Bush and is open to discussion. Some think he willingly went with bad information, others believe he went off what he thought was the most legitimate or had the most risk vs reliability ration. He then went on to have his administration sell the war based on this information and his administration gave the impression to MANY people that Iraq was directly involved or responsible for 9/11 or working directly with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. Whether this was intentional on the part of the Bush Administration or if it was simply the American Public jumping to concussions because words happen to be near each other or if its due to the media's presentation of it is open to discussion.
This is much like Obama.
Obama did talk about change, he did talk about a cultural shift in washington. Now, we on the right can definitely say that the way he talked, the inflections and implications he made, was that it was going to be putting in "new blood" and being some huge sweeping change. However, from a technically stand point, he could've easily simply been meaning a "Change" from the republican practices and leadership of the past 8 years. Much like those that "assumed" Bush's administration purposefully tied Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, people are "assuming" they knew exactly what Obama meant by change. Because Obama never specifically came out and said "All my appointed people in government are going to have little to no experience in washington, no ties to other major democrats, and will have years upon years of experience in the job".
Indeed, the past 3 CIA heads have been listed here already...all 3 with a great deal of intelligence background and all three right leaning. Is not a person that has a more business oriented experience than intelligence, and who is not a republican, technically a "Change". And is there any actual evidence in actual words...not assumptions and paraphases by us posters...to prove that this somehow is adverse to what Obama stated he'd do?
I'm not saying its a good decision. Read what I've wrote in this thread, I've said it was an extremely poor one. At the same time, NO, Obama is not a "liar". Unless you all can somehow show an EXACT statement by Obama saying he would not do this, or are able to read his mind, you can only talk about your ASSUMPTIONS of what he "meant" to say or imply....and that's exactly what the left has done to Bush's actions to state that he is a liar. They've taken his words and circumstantial actions, decided that they are mind readers, and based on what they've divined from his mind they deem that he purposefully lied.
I don't believe Bush purposefully lied. I also don't believe that Obama purposefully lied.
He promised the Democrats a change. And this is, significantly, a change from the past 8 years. To things like "incompetence", as much as inexperience is bad, inexperience does not equal incompetence as incompetence must be shown through ACTION. So while I think Panetta is a bad appointment, I can not say he is an "incompetent" leader of the CIA until he shows himself to be in one case or another.
The only democrats that should be disenchnated by this selection are those that assumed that the "Change" he was bringing to Washington was a significant change to the entire culture and way in which government and Washington has worked for YEARS...not just the past 8. I don't believe aps was one of those people.