McCain cheated on his wife too

[atotaltotalfan2001]

So why isn't that an issue?

Women, and men, complain about Hillary sticking by a cheating husband. She's faulted for this.

But McCain cheated on his first wife too -- lots of times -- and that never gets any discussion.

Double standard?

You bet.

By Bill Muller
The Arizona Republic
June 05, 1999 12:12:00

In 1979, John McCain came face to face with his future.

He was in Hawaii, attending a military reception. While there, he met a young, blond, former cheerleader named Cindy Hensley.

It was an incredible stroke of luck for McCain.

How fortunate could one man be? Here was McCain, who had his eye on Congress, meeting a young, attractive beer heiress from Arizona, which was adding a congressional district in 1982.

McCain recalls that both he and Cindy fudged their ages at first. McCain made himself a little younger and Cindy made herself a little older. They found out their real ages when the local paper published them. McCain was 43, Cindy 25.

''So our marriage,'' McCain cracks, ''is really based on a tissue of lies.''

While they were dating, McCain called Cindy from Beijing, where he was traveling with a contingent from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while she was in the hospital recuperating from minor knee surgery. She thanked him for the lovely flowers in her room, sent from ''John.''

What McCain didn't tell Cindy was that he hadn't sent the flowers. They were from another John, who lived in Tucson.

''I never thanked him,'' Cindy notes with a grin.

After a whirlwind courtship, John asked Cindy to marry him. But there were some details to clear out of the way.

McCain needed a divorce from his wife of 14 years, Carol, who had been badly injured in a car accident while McCain languished in Hanoi.

The marriage had been strained by his years of absence, along with McCain's admitted affairs after returning from Vietnam.

http://www.azcentral.com/republic/special39/articles/1003mccainbook4.html

[crabapples]

I like how when people bring up this and show articles from a decade ago, they dont get McCain's first wife's response to the whole thing and how the divorce proceedings went. She admitted that she had changed, both physically and mentally, and how he had changed as well.

I believe she ended up with two houses and a fair amount of money. Plus her medical bills were all paid for as well, even after the divorce.

So yeah, he came back after being tortured for 7 years to a wife who was severely debilitated by a car accident and he found another woman. Was this the best thing for him to have done? Maybe it was. Until we live in their shoes we would have no idea what was going on. It was likely better for both of them to get divorced than to try and keep a failing marriage together.

But this story has been out there for years upon years. The difference between the Clintons and the McCains is that John never lied about it and he did the right thing by divorcing. Whereas, Bill lied under oath about his fling and chose to stated married.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I like how when people bring up this and show articles from a decade ago, they dont get McCain's first wife's response to the whole thing and how the divorce proceedings went. She admitted that she had changed, both physically and mentally, and how he had changed as well.

I believe she ended up with two houses and a fair amount of money. Plus her medical bills were all paid for as well, even after the divorce.

So yeah, he came back after being tortured for 7 years to a wife who was severely debilitated by a car accident and he found another woman. Was this the best thing for him to have done? Maybe it was. Until we live in their shoes we would have no idea what was going on. It was likely better for both of them to get divorced than to try and keep a failing marriage together.

But this story has been out there for years upon years. The difference between the Clintons and the McCains is that John never lied about it and he did the right thing by divorcing. Whereas, Bill lied under oath about his fling and chose to stated married.

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

[crabapples]

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

I didnt say it was a bad thing. I said the difference between the two situations is one stayed married the other didnt and one lied and the other didnt.

[PaulJonson]

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

I don't think Bill was in any position to decide anything at that time.....

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I didnt say it was a bad thing. I said the difference between the two situations is one stayed married the other didnt and one lied and the other didnt.

The real difference is no one cornered McCain like Clinton was cornered.

His affair with Monica was no business of ours. Except the far right was outraged that Clinton was president.

If the left operated like the far right, and McCain had been president, he would have found himself in far worst shape -- war hero or no.

Cheating on a wife is cheating on a wife. And McCain did it lots of times. His original wife forgave him. Just like Hillary forgave Bill.

But Hillary is damned for it because she had the nerve to have her own ambitions and run for elective office.

Double standard.

[steven]

We have a president now that cannot legally be licensed in any state because he has multiple DUI's. How many times do u see the "liberal media" mentioning that.

[crabapples]

The real difference is no one cornered McCain like Clinton was cornered.

His affair with Monica was no business of ours. Except the far right was outraged that Clinton was president.

If the left operated like the far right, and McCain had been president, he would have found himself in far worst shape -- war hero or no.

Cheating on a wife is cheating on a wife. And McCain did it lots of times. His original wife forgave him. Just like Hillary forgave Bill.

But Hillary is damned for it because she had the nerve to have her own ambitions and run for elective office.

Double standard.

I think you are missing what I was saying. I was comparing Bill and John. The reason people dont like the Clintons is that Bill lied under oath. If any one of us did that we would go to jail.

Hillary chose to stay with Bill. That was her choice. Just like McCain and his wife decided to get divorced and John remarried.

If it isnt the publics right to know about the Clintons (mind you that Bill was fooling around with an intern in the White House), why are you so concerned with the McCains?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

So why isn't that an issue?

Women, and men, complain about Hillary sticking by a cheating husband. She's faulted for this.

But McCain cheated on his first wife too -- lots of times -- and that never gets any discussion.

Double standard?

You bet.


Do not agree. Cheating is bad no matter how you look at it. But if people want to give Bill a free pass then you have to give John a pass.

The problem from a lot of people with HC is she stood by Bill only for her career. Not because she was wanting to work on the marriage. When someone will do that on such a personal issue, what is going to stop them from selling out people for personal gain when it is not personal. See 200k jobs. At least that is how I see it.

[therising]

I read the title of this thread, and immediately clicked "Post reply" without even reading it.

The reason - I don't really care if he cheated on his wife. That's their problem, not mine. I'm not casting stones.

[raoul duke]

The reason people dont like the Clintons is that Bill lied under oath. If any one of us did that we would go to jail.
Show me one person who went to prison for a perjury trap over an extramarital affair and I'll believe that. Good luck finding an example. There are a lot of reasons people don't like the Clintons (I could name about 100 of them personally.) The horse-crap that was Slick Willie's impeachment was not one of them. In fact, his popularity rose during the whole embarassing mess.

[crabapples]

Show me one person who went to prison for a perjury trap over an extramarital affair and I'll believe that. Good luck finding an example. There are a lot of reasons people don't like the Clintons (I could name about 100 of them personally.) The horse-crap that was Slick Willie's impeachment was not one of them. In fact, his popularity rose during the whole embarassing mess.

PERJURY is PERJURY no matter what the context is. He could have simply told the truth, but he chose not to.

No traps, he had his affair and LIED about it. CHEATING is CHEATING, doesnt matter what the context is, thats why McCain and Bill are equal on that.

So in recapping my point: McCain and Bill Clinton both cheated. One lied under oath after swearing to tell the truth...

[raoul duke]

PERJURY is PERJURY no matter what the context is. He could have simply told the truth, but he chose not to.

No traps, he had his affair and LIED about it. CHEATING is CHEATING, doesnt matter what the context is, thats why McCain and Bill are equal on that.

So in recapping my point: McCain and Bill Clinton both cheated. One lied under oath after swearing to tell the truth...
Don't know anyone that went to prison, eh?

BTW, perjury trap is a legitmate defense. It goes like this: Under oath, you are asked about something that, at the moment, is not directly related to the line of questioning (like "have you ever cheated on your wife?" during an investigation into business and real estate deals.) Not seeing how thats related and not wanting to open a can of seemingly unrelated worms, you tell the white lie most would and have in this situation - "no I haven't." Now for the trap. Having your answer on record, the questioner, usually at a later date, comes back with proof that you, in fact, cheated on your wife. Thus exposing a lie in your testimony. If you can prove the person conducting the examination knew in advance the answer to that question and asked it to set you up, you have a defense. Perjury is perjury, but with every crime there are circumstances and sometimes legitmate defenses with regards to those circumstances. It's not like he was lying to conceal war crimes or the overt politicization of the Department of Justice or anything. . .

It's not the most persuasive defense and it doesn't seem to be that often used, but it's there and it's a completely legitmate defense. It's not an easy one to prove but any matrimonial lawyer worth his/her fee will tell you it's a useful and legitmate tool. Nevermind that up until Clinton, presidents were granted immunity from civil actions not related specifically to their performance in office until after their term was over. But since when have Republicans cared about legal traditions?

[crabapples]

Don't know anyone that went to prison, eh?

BTW, perjury trap is a legitmate defense. It goes like this: Under oath, you are asked about something that, at the moment, is not directly related to the line of questioning [/COLOR[COLOR="red"]](like "have you ever cheated on your wife?" during an investigation into business and real estate deals.) Not seeing how thats related and not wanting to open a can of seemingly unrelated worms, you tell the white lie most would and have in this situation - "no I haven't." Now for the trap. Having your answer on record, the questioner, usually at a later date, comes back with proof that you, in fact, cheated on your wife. Thus exposing a lie in your testimony. If you can prove the person conducting the examination knew in advance the answer to that question and asked it to set you up, you have a defense. Perjury is perjury, but with every crime there are circumstances and sometimes legitmate defenses with regards to those circumstances. It's not like he was lying to conceal war crimes or the overt politicization of the Department of Justice or anything. . .

It's not the most persuasive defense and it doesn't seem to be that often used, but it's there and it's a completely legitmate defense. It's not an easy one to prove but any matrimonial lawyer worth his/her fee will tell you it's a useful and legitmate tool. Nevermind that up until Clinton, presidents were granted immunity from civil actions not related specifically to their performance in office until after their term was over. But since when have Republicans cared about legal traditions?

Clearly you dont remember these words that came out of his mouth:

"No I did not have sexual relationships with that women, Ms. Lewinsky." It was not like he just said No. He infact named her in his statement. So dont give me that line of b.s.

I havent had time to research how many people have gone to jail for perjury and perjury related to extramarital affiars. But it is still ILLEGAL!

[CSense]

If I recall this is where we have a new definition for sex. Playing the skin flute is not considered sex.

[raoul duke]

Clearly you dont remember these words that came out of his mouth:

"No I did not have sexual relationships with that women, Ms. Lewinsky." It was not like he just said No. He infact named her in his statement. So dont give me that line of b.s.

I havent had time to research how many people have gone to jail for perjury and perjury related to extramarital affiars. But it is still ILLEGAL!
But it's hardly a "High Crime and/or Misdemeanor." Don't bother looking, because you will not find anyone who went to prison for perjury under similar circumstances.

[crabapples]

But it's hardly a "High Crime and/or Misdemeanor." Don't bother looking, because you will not find anyone who went to prison for perjury under similar circumstances.

Ha. While you may think you know this to be fact, you are infact WRONG. While perjury sentences in civil matters rarely occur (people are usually let off the hook in divorce cases or given monetary penalties) they do occur. Here is an article someone wrote in regards to your question:

"Sex, lies and the courts: perjury charges are rare

I'd like to take the credit for this story idea, but I can't. As the House began considering whether to launch a Clinton impeachment inquiry, Tom Heslin came up to me and asked if I could find out how common it was for people to be prosecuted for lying under oath about sex in civil cases.
Tom and I both thought the result of my research could result in a national story. But what ensued was a reporter's nightmare.
How could I find the cases — if there were any — to build my story around?
I knew that perjury prosecutions were pretty rare. And I also had a hunch that most civil perjury stemmed from divorce cases (where so many people lie about extramarital affairs). So I began a national query of domestic-relations experts and judges to see what I could find. The search took me from the chief judge of Rhode Island's Family Court to a bunch of matrimonial experts I found through ProfNet to the man who is arguably the most famous divorce lawyer in the country, Raoul Felder, of Manhattan. In between, I talked to Monica Getz, the widow of jazz musician Stan Getz.
I had to do a zillion interviews before I found what I wanted!
It was Felder, who at the very end of a 30-minute conversation, told me about the case of the VA psychiatrist who had been prosecuted for lying about an affair she had with one of her patients. He didn't know any details — just that he remembered reading something written about it in the New York Post.
I was having difficulty on my antiquated computer getting the stories I wanted on the Internet, so asked the night librarian, Frank Carnevale, if he could search the New York Post database.
Within an hour, Frank had found enough information — name of the shrink, and the name of patient — so that, the next day, I was able to do more research, which led me to more Internet stories, the Idaho court where the case was filed and the Justice Department prosecutor who had handled the case.
I found the other case — the one involving the clerygman — by finding a vague, one-line reference to it in a January 1998 article written by Ruth Marcus, of the Washington Post.
Because I don't have access to Lexis/Nexis here, I called a friend, Ray Marcaccio, who is one of our libel lawyers, to see if he could quickly find any reference to this case in his libel journals or on Lexis. Ray found a decision relating to the man's libel suit, and that was enough for me to get the criminal end of the story — through calls to the Illinois Department of Corrections, the Illinois court where the clergyman had been prosecuted and the prosecutor himself.
After the reporting hassle, the writing came easily. I set the story up with the Clinton predicament, then quoted Monica Lewinsky's lawyer saying he bet reporters couldn't find one civil perjury case that had been prosecuted criminally at the federal level over the last 100 years. Then, I showed how William Ginsberg was wrong.
Tom Heslin was right. My story got picked up by the Knight Ridder National Wire and ran in a bunch of newspapers around the country. Readers from as far away as California sent me clippings and letters about it."

So there, people have been prosecuted for perjury in civil manners.

Also, the Mayor of Detroit is looking at a 15-year sentence for his recent perjury scandal. Will he be sentenced to 15 years? Highly unlikely. Will he be fined? Probably.

It is probably much harder to prosecute civil perjuries especially since the former President of the US got away with it.

[crabapples]

If I recall this is where we have a new definition for sex. Playing the skin flute is not considered sex.

No but it is considered sexual relations. To which, he lied about.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Clearly you dont remember these words that came out of his mouth:

"No I did not have sexual relationships with that women, Ms. Lewinsky." It was not like he just said No. He infact named her in his statement. So dont give me that line of b.s.

I havent had time to research how many people have gone to jail for perjury and perjury related to extramarital affiars. But it is still ILLEGAL!

Roger Clemens - Soon
Martha Stewart
lil Kim
Mark Furhman

[raoul duke]

I had to do a zillion interviews before I found what I wanted!
You don't say?

[therising]

No but it is considered sexual relations. To which, he lied about.

It literally gives me a headache to know that holier than thous like you are sill talking about this argument.

Guess what? When put in the predicament of getting caught getting a blow job in their office, 99% of men would lie - Including you, or your husband ( I don't know (or care) if you're male or female.

[speaker]

Do not agree. Cheating is bad no matter how you look at it. But if people want to give Bill a free pass then you have to give John a pass.

The problem from a lot of people with HC is she stood by Bill only for her career. Not because she was wanting to work on the marriage. When someone will do that on such a personal issue, what is going to stop them from selling out people for personal gain when it is not personal. See 200k jobs. At least that is how I see it.

What makes you think you know her mind on why she stayed? She stayed.

His lie was miniscule compared to the lies we've heard from W.

[crabapples]

It literally gives me a headache to know that holier than thous like you are sill talking about this argument.

Guess what? When put in the predicament of getting caught getting a blow job in their office, 99% of men would lie - Including you, or your husband ( I don't know (or care) if you're male or female.

Does it give you a headache that people are still talking about McCains indiscretions that happened almost 30 years ago?

[run4it]

Does it give you a headache that people are still talking about McCains indiscretions that happened almost 30 years ago?
If this logic were to be followed, the entire Republican party would have had an aneurism rehashing what Pres Clinton did 15 years ago.

[mesue]

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?
I suppose you'd have to ask Hilary about that, and only after all is said and done. When there is no poll to tell her how to answer. I might actually spend money to buy a book of her memoirs, after she goes into the post celebrity seclusion, about the whole thing.

[therising]

Does it give you a headache that people are still talking about McCains indiscretions that happened almost 30 years ago?

Yup, absolutely.

See my earlier post in which I said I don't care about whether or not he cheated on his wife.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

What makes you think you know her mind on why she stayed? She stayed.

His lie was minuscule compared to the lies we've heard from W.

I must say you have a great skill in bringing everything back to Bush. Is he responsible for everything?

To put it simply, two wrongs do not make a right. The topic on this thread is Clinton not Bush. Bringing up Bush is simply a weak argument to counter what is being discussed about Clinton. Fact of the matter is there has not been a President that both sides have been happy with...well since ever.

Will Bush go down as a great, good or effective President? That is a matter of opinion and will change over time. It also depends on what your views are and what issue you are talking about. NOT EVERYTHING IS IRAQ. Just as a lot of people called Clinton's time the best ever when he first left, yet today some of his decisions are playing out over the long haul and are not as popular. The same with JFK. Some people called him the greatest but he was a fool on foreign policy and Khrushev ran circles around him.

Do I think all of his policies are a mistake? No. But some are very unpopular. Decisive people are always unpopular. Do I wish he was a better public speaker or that he improved on other faults? Yes. But at the end of the day he is what he is and he was elected twice.

Simple minded people have one comment to make about Bush and that is Iraq. While it is the biggest item in his two terms it is not his only item. Only to the people who regurgitate what the news talks about continue to present this as his whole legacy.

[speaker]

What makes you think you know her mind on why she stayed? She stayed.

His lie was miniscule compared to the lies we've heard from W.

Well, then, please let me edit that comment to read:

What makes you think you know her mind on why she stayed? She stayed.:rolleyes:

[atotaltotalfan2001]

It literally gives me a headache to know that holier than thous like you are sill talking about this argument.

Guess what? When put in the predicament of getting caught getting a blow job in their office, 99% of men would lie - Including you, or your husband ( I don't know (or care) if you're male or female.

Yep.

Hey rising. you rule.:)

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

Well, then, please let me edit that comment to read:

What makes you think you know her mind on why she stayed? She stayed.:rolleyes:

The same question is what makes you think that she did not stay for political gain?

When it looks like sh*t and smells like sh*t........

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Hey, a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. Whether the right wing gets him/ her or not.

Frankly, I never cared about Clinton's sex life. And I don't care about McCain's sex life (yuck to both. It's like thinking about my parents sex life).

But the rules should be level for both.

[mesue]

Hey, a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. Whether the right wing gets him/ her or not.

Frankly, I never cared about Clinton's sex life. And I don't care about McCain's sex life (yuck to both. It's like thinking about my parents sex life).

But the rules should be level for both.
Thank you :)

[crabapples]

If this logic were to be followed, the entire Republican party would have had an aneurism rehashing what Pres Clinton did 15 years ago.

What did Bill Clinton do 15 years ago?

[WNYresident]

What did Bill Clinton do 15 years ago?

Anyone he could

[300miles]

Hey, a cheater is a cheater is a cheater. Whether the right wing gets him/ her or not.

Frankly, I never cared about Clinton's sex life. And I don't care about McCain's sex life (yuck to both. It's like thinking about my parents sex life).

But the rules should be level for both.
I think you understand where the difference lies though... McCain's affair was a private matter involving someone not in office and did not involve perjury.

Mr. Clinton's did.

But I do agree that Hillary was never part of that equation. I never heard that anyone was holding that against her. Except I suppose someone could argue she only stayed with him to make sure her own political career kept on track... but that's her decision.

[300miles]

Roger Clemens - Soon
Martha Stewart
lil Kim
Mark Furhman

Here's another one for raoul duke to follow closely:


Mayor’s Amorous Texts Lead to Perjury Inquiry

DETROIT — The city’s charismatic but scandal-plagued mayor and his chief of staff will be the subject of an investigation into whether they lied under oath when they denied having an extramarital affair ...

The messages, transmitted to and from Ms. Beatty’s city-owned pager in 2002 and 2003, appear to show that the two had an intimate relationship and suggest that they committed perjury by denying the affair during testimony in one of two whistleblower lawsuits that have cost taxpayers in the beleaguered city more than $9 million.

A felony perjury conviction carries a possible sentence of up to 15 years in prison. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/26detroit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[raoul duke]

Here's another one for raoul duke to follow closely:


Mayor’s Amorous Texts Lead to Perjury Inquiry

DETROIT — The city’s charismatic but scandal-plagued mayor and his chief of staff will be the subject of an investigation into whether they lied under oath when they denied having an extramarital affair ...

The messages, transmitted to and from Ms. Beatty’s city-owned pager in 2002 and 2003, appear to show that the two had an intimate relationship and suggest that they committed perjury by denying the affair during testimony in one of two whistleblower lawsuits that have cost taxpayers in the beleaguered city more than $9 million.

A felony perjury conviction carries a possible sentence of up to 15 years in prison. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/us/26detroit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Uh. . . he's not in prison?

Personally, I could care less if McCain was cheating on his wife with a much younger and much more wealthy woman. As far as Republicans go, at least it wasn't happening in a bathroom or in diapers, with a hooker.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

I think you understand where the difference lies though... McCain's affair was a private matter involving someone not in office and did not involve perjury.

Mr. Clinton's did.

But I do agree that Hillary was never part of that equation. I never heard that anyone was holding that against her. Except I suppose someone could argue she only stayed with him to make sure her own political career kept on track... but that's her decision.

Clinton's affair involved perjury only because the right wing trapped him into talking about is PERSONAL life.

If this country trapped Bush into testifying about his personal life, I hate to think of what would come out.....

[300miles]

Uh. . . he's not in prison?
Uh... that's why I said you should follow the case.
He could be charged for perjury in a situation almost identical to B.Clinton's.

[300miles]

Clinton's affair involved perjury only because the right wing trapped him into talking about is PERSONAL life.

If this country trapped Bush into testifying about his personal life, I hate to think of what would come out.....
We're not talking about Bush, were we.
You were comparing Clinton and McCain.

:)

[atotaltotalfan2001]

We're not talking about Bush, were we.
You were comparing Clinton and McCain.

:)

Even more true. Let's put McCain in front of a grand jury and see what he has to say about his sex life.

Yuck, and yuck yuck. But you get my point...:)

Just the thought is grossing me out.....

[tomac]

So why isn't that an issue?

Women, and men, complain about Hillary sticking by a cheating husband. She's faulted for this.

But McCain cheated on his first wife too -- lots of times -- and that never gets any discussion.

Double standard?

You bet.


What disgusts me is that McCain has never addressed nor appologized for his part in the Keating Five scandal. A lot of innocent people lost their life savings when Keating's Savings and Loan went under. McClean used his power as head of the Senate Banking Committee to stall investigation on that S&L for months until Keating could try and line up a sap, errrrrr potential buyer for it. By the time he was found out, the S&L was pretty much bankrupt.
But McClean insists that he did nothing wrong......
:mad:

[tomac]

Bill Clinton decided to stay married and that's a bad thing?

Look who he stayed married to....

:rolleyes:

[tomac]

I must say you have a great skill in bringing everything back to Bush. Is he responsible for everything?

No, just the bad stuff, like Iraq, the economy, No Child Left Behind, etc......

To put it simply, two wrongs do not make a right. The topic on this thread is Clinton not Bush. Bringing up Bush is simply a weak argument to counter what is being discussed about Clinton. Fact of the matter is there has not been a President that both sides have been happy with...well since ever.

Wrong again kimosabe, the thread is about John McCain.

Will Bush go down as a great, good or effective President? That is a matter of opinion and will change over time. It also depends on what your views are and what issue you are talking about. NOT EVERYTHING IS IRAQ. Just as a lot of people called Clinton's time the best ever when he first left, yet today some of his decisions are playing out over the long haul and are not as popular. The same with JFK. Some people called him the greatest but he was a fool on foreign policy and Khrushev ran circles around him.

Regarding Bush, in addition to great, good or effective, you forgot incompetant, idiotic, and moron....

Do I think all of his policies are a mistake? No. But some are very unpopular. Decisive people are always unpopular. Do I wish he was a better public speaker or that he improved on other faults? Yes. But at the end of the day he is what he is and he was elected twice.

Puh-leassssse! He was elected the first time because a Supreme Court with several people selected by his dad Selected him. The second time it was because he used a company to install electronic voting machines who "happened" to be a big-time campaign contributor. Can we say crooked, people?

Simple minded people have one comment to make about Bush and that is Iraq. While it is the biggest item in his two terms it is not his only item. Only to the people who regurgitate what the news talks about continue to present this as his whole legacy.

His legacy is one of incompetance, lies, graft, corruption, favoritism to the wealthy and, as you so kindly pointed out, the unwarranted invasion of a country for its stocks of oil.
Iraq isn't the only reason that he'll be remembered....

[Bringthetruth]

Wow I never saw this thread, this proves that mccain or Hillary will be in the whitehouse by hook or crook.