"Bush approved intelligence leak"

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

and was impeached for something the world other than neo-con US felt was very ridiculous.

Quote

Telling lies to congress while under oath isn't a ridiculous reason for impeachment.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Lucky... 0]

HERE, RUSH, I'LL REPOST IT FOR YOU. PLEASE SHOW ME THE ATTACK. WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, RESPOND TO THE REST OF IT OR CONCEDE.

FOR CLARITY, I'LL PLACE MY STATEMENTS IN BOLD.

Quote

Quote

Just saying that you can't believe that everyone can not think that Bush breaks all laws makes you someone that can not talk about the issues. It is very telling where you must get ALL your news from.

As for Clinton, HE DID NOT GET IMPEACHED FOR GETTING A BJ. Just stating that shows you do not know the facts or you choose to ignore them.

Do I think Clinton was a criminal? Hell yes, he addmittied to it. Last time I knew lieing under oath (FOR A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT SUIT) is called purgurey and is a felony

And by the way, what would the media do to any Rebublican that would have gotten into the same situation? THEY would have piled on just like they do to Bush today.....

Bush has broken no laws that we know of. The charges run wild but with no fact to back them up they wither and die, (just like the once great Dem party in doing)

Just saying that you can't believe that everyone can not think that Bush breaks all laws makes you someone that can not talk about the issues. It is very telling where you must get ALL your news from.

As for Clinton, HE DID NOT GET IMPEACHED FOR GETTING A BJ. Just stating that shows you do not know the facts or you choose to ignore them.

Do I think Clinton was a criminal? Hell yes, he addmittied to it. Last time I knew lieing under oath (FOR A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT SUIT) is called purgurey and is a felony.

And by the way, what would the media do to any Rebublican that would have gotten into the same situation? THEY would have piled on just like they do to Bush today.....

Bush has broken no laws that we know of. The charges run wild but with no fact to back them up they wither and die, (just like the once great Dem party in doing)

***

[B]Where did I write that he breaks all laws? Please post reference. I agree, punctuation is overrated. Thanks for making the issue about me though. Back to the issue: “Bush approved intelligence leak" [/B]

Quote

It is very telling where you must get ALL your news from.

[B]Oh, that’s next thread where we discuss from where I get my news. I don’t understand how this affects the issue; “Bush approved intelligence leak"[/B]

Quote

As for Clinton, HE DID NOT GET IMPEACHED FOR GETTING A BJ. Just stating that shows you do not know the facts or you choose to ignore them.

[B]So if you are successfully able to establish that I don’t know jack, then Bush must be innocent, right? I just don’t understand your angle here, you could hypothetically make your proof and Bush would still be Bush regardless of me. Learn how to argue the issue, no the person making the argument. Back to the issue: “Bush approved intelligence leak"

I understand why you just replied and didn’t post quotes from me, so here is the one to which you wee referring:[/B]

Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie.

[B]The last part, the subsequent lie. See, I do know the technical reason why Clinton was impeached. Truth is, Clinton dared to against the Republican machine and was impeached for something the world other than neo-con US felt was very ridiculous. Again, neo-con US was right and 90% of the rest of the world was wrong. Factually, I doubt you realize why Clinton was impeached, the four charges where 2 were handed down as impeachments. Furthermore, I doubt you know what the process is for indictment and removal, % of votes required at each level and all kinds of other related stuff. Not that Clinton’s or Bush’s guilt or innocence rides on that knowledge.[/B]

Quote

Do I think Clinton was a criminal? Hell yes, he addmittied to it. Last time I knew lieing under oath (FOR A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT SUIT) is called purgurey and is a felony.

[B]As an aside, it’s hard to read someone tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about when they wrote:

“addmittied”
“purgurey”

Was there a sexual harassment suit? I don’t think there was, I think it was a Congressional investigation that was stemmed from Ken Starr‘s preliminary investigation. Oh well, same thing, right? Was Clinton sued in civil court or tried in criminal court fro the Lewinsky deal? Uh, I think not.

In some states we still have laws prohibiting Open and Notorious Cohabitation, but they are as enforced as much as spitting on the sidewalk laws. Interrogating a person in the 1990’s for getting a BJ in that capacity is entirely ridiculous and a witchhunt.[/B]

Quote

And by the way, what would the media do to any Rebublican that would have gotten into the same situation? THEY would have piled on just like they do to Bush today.....

[B]Great point, the media went after Clinton just like they did Reagan/Bush for Iran/Contra. Speaking of which, that was an example of scumbags being guilty as hell, but there not being enough proof. So that deflates your, “liberal media” theory when you discuss the media going after politicians, as they did with Clinton. Again, it’s ok to talk about the media, but they only report and sometimes skew the facts; doesn’t change the actual guilt or innocence of the politician.[/B]

Quote

Bush has broken no laws that we know of. The charges run wild but with no fact to back them up they wither and die, (just like the once great Dem party in doing)

[B]Wiretapping, torture, and the Libby scandal; don’t be so sure there won’t be charges coming down, especially if the House becomes Democratically controlled. Polls have the Dems very high as a result of the Republican corruption. And with gas prices even higher than Republican despise, I think the Dems will take back the House and maybe the Senate. So if anything the Dems have an upswing in popularity.

You must have forgotten to address these issue I posted in response to you:

1) Actually he's the 2nd favorite to women, behind JFK. I think you mean you view him as a pig for the way he is to women. OK, so don't date him, but many women would.... and prolly do.

2) Furthermore, the Repubs went after Clinton for being Clinton, not for some silly BJ and subsequent lie. They would have impeached him for whatever, once they had a majority in congress for a bit. It was pathetic and the Repubs opened a door that they will be walking thr very soon if Congress turns Democratic, or at least the House.

3) What is this world coming to: A president held to political standards!!!

Uh, impeachment is a political process, just as censure and all other actions.

Do you think the Clinton impeachment was criminal? Is it a crime that is enforced to commit adultery? They call it, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," but in a political sense. Kind of like when a corporation kills people; it's a civil infraction.

4) OK, so Bush f'd up and left him there, so what? He is in his position, just like Brown of FEMA and now "IT IS WHAT IT IS," regardless of what some wish it was.

5) Clinton should have shoved it down Monica's throat to ensure no leakage, or,.... pulled out a dirty sock and emptied it there and no one would know the diffffff........ coulda - shoulda - ISN'T; Specter is there and making his assertions, just as Clarence Thomas did. Bush ran him out and placed his clone there, but Specter is there and Bush can't do shit but face the same music Clinton did..... Clinton's gotta be loving it.

6) Factoid: Clinton had a 50% approval rating after impeachment..... what is Bush's before? Maybe 35% or so? Pathetic.[/B]

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Do I think Clinton was a criminal? Hell yes, he addmittied to it. Last time I knew lieing under oath (FOR A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT SUIT) is called purgurey and is a felony

And Bush is a convicted criminal, convicted in a court of law. That doesn't seem to stop any adoration for him from you.

Personally I think driving drunk is a bit more serious than lieing about a blowjob. But hey, we all have our priorities....you like to fight against blowjobs, I like to fight against drunk driving....

Great point, I missed that one. Again, more morality, as Amazon was referencing. BJ's bad, alcohol good.

I agree, I'm pro-BJ, anti-drunk driver.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

and was impeached for something the world other than neo-con US felt was very ridiculous.

Quote

Telling lies to congress while under oath isn't a ridiculous reason for impeachment.

I'm under the assumption that you weren't quoting someone, but those were your words. The way you have it formatted it appears you are quoting someone.

So is telling a lie to Congress about something that ends in the death of thousands as imnportant as something trivial? If we compare it to the general logic surrounding the criminal system we can find that there are HUGE differences. Lying in a perjerous fashion about negligible things in a case where there are no victims, probably won't get more than a warning from the judge, versus an intentional lie about a major issue in a murder trial. IOW's, a lie is not a lie, is not a lie.

If your wife lied about spending $20 more than she initially said she did, would that carry as much weight as her lying about shopping when you dicovered she was getting screwed by a co-worker at his house?

Seriously, it's convenient to wave the, "A lie is a lie" flag all over the place, but it is ridiculous/irresonsible to purport all lies as the same.

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Seriously, it's convenient to wave the, "A lie is a lie" flag all over the place, but it is ridiculous/irresponsible to purport all lies as the same.

***

For you and I perhaps that's true, but for PODUS to knowingly and willingly lie in response to a direct question posed...while under oath...there IS a difference.

At least there SHOULD be!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

For you and I perhaps that's true, but for PODUS to knowingly and willingly lie in response to a direct question posed...while under oath...there IS a difference.

At least there SHOULD be!

And he was there because of the outrage over a blowjob. The whole country was in an uproar over a blowjob. It was quite funny to the rest of the world though.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Seriously, it's convenient to wave the, "A lie is a lie" flag all over the place, but it is ridiculous/irresponsible to purport all lies as the same.

***

For you and I perhaps that's true, but for PODUS to knowingly and willingly lie in response to a direct question posed...while under oath...there IS a difference.

At least there SHOULD be!

Totally disagree.

Ken Melman, GOP chairman/spokesman said on Meet The Press:

1) Congress had the exact same intelligence that Bush did

2) Congress had the exact same intelligence that Bush did

Tim Russeert: How about the independant review by the Washington Post.....

3) Congress had basically the same ......


Bush cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq to sell it to Congress for support, just as he disclosed calssified intelligence to gain support, then when things go to fuck he turns and says, "they were for it too."

A lie by ommission is still a lie: Bush lied to Congress by suppressing intelligence from Congress.

Clinton lied so his wife wouldn't know he got a happy BJ

SAME THING????????

[rushmc 23]

The cards keep falling down ??

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:42 a.m. EDT
Patrick Fitzgerald: Leakgate Filing was False


In a move that raises serious questions about his conduct of the Leakgate probe, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald now admits he was wrong to publicly allege last week that Vice President Dick Cheney deliberately tried to mislead reporters about prewar Iraq intelligence.

In a much ballyhooed filing with the court, Fitzgerald had claimed that Cheney told Leakgate defendant Lewis Libby to tell New York Times reporter Judith Miller that one of the "key" findings of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium before the war.

However, in a letter yesterday, Fitzgerald advised Leakgate Judge Reggie Walton that his April 5 filing was flat out wrong.

"We are writing to correct a sentence," Fitzgerald confessed, before explaining that the following statement in his filing had no basis in fact: "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium."

Instead, Fitzgerald told the judge he wants to withdraw the bogus claim, and revise his filing to read: "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." [NewsMax italics]

The New York Sun, which obtained a copy of Fitzgerald's letter late last night, notes today: "The now-withdrawn assertion that Mr. Libby was ordered to tell a reporter that a secondary and disputed finding in the report was, in fact, a 'key judgment' was featured in the second paragraph of a front-page New York Times story on Sunday arguing that the leak to Ms. Miller was skewed."

Fitzgerald's bogus claim, the paper said, had been "noted prominently in some news accounts and contributed to an uproar that threw the White House into a tailspin last week."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:42 a.m. EDT
Patrick Fitzgerald: Leakgate Filing was False

No byline? You must be tired of people calling you on your bullshit, partisan, editorial sources.

No matter. I'll fill it in: Bullshit, partisan, editorial source

I especially love the ad on that page that says "Men: Do You Hate Rejection By Women? Cilck Here Now!"

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

And he was there because of the outrage over a blowjob.

***

I don't care if he was THERE because of unpaid parking tickets!

He lied to direct questioning under oath...he's a lawyer for God sake...surely he knew the downside of doing that.

You really have to wonder about the character of someone that would even PUT themselves IN that position.

I'm not saying the 'current crew' is any better with the 'need to know' attitude that seems to permeate the administration...but I wanted to clarify my position, that in MY mind anyway...

Willy wasn't catching arrows for the BJ itself as much as he was for getting CAUGHT and then trying to lie.

We as a country elected the guy and his actions and reactions to being caught with his pants down so to speak....left a stain on more than just Monica's dress!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[quade 4]

Quote

Willy wasn't catching arrows for the BJ itself as much as he was for getting CAUGHT and then trying to lie.

As opposed to GWB who is lying first, then declassifying documents so even if he is caught, it is by his definition "legal".

Ah . . . now I see.

Yes, that's just fine.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Willy wasn't catching arrows for the BJ itself as much as he was for getting CAUGHT and then trying to lie.

As opposed to GWB who is lying first, then declassifying documents so even if he is caught, it is by his definition "legal".

Ah . . . now I see.

Yes, that's just fine.

***

A fine line I agree, but a line that 'Joe Lunchbox'
more clearly understands.

Ethics are always a gray area, perjury...not so much.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I love this. You don't know anything about me other than what I post. Then you imply that I am things that I never posted to, to as your proof and you do it with insults jabs and placing lables. You want to see pure arrogance? Look in the mirior. Why, because anyone that doesn't follow your beliefs has is something evil (I guess)

You are supporting this administration.. lock .. stock.. and barrel.... you guys on the far right are the ones claiming righteousness... and patriotism.. and you CONSTANTLY go out of your way to find questionable news sources that apologize for the shortcomings of your MAGNIFICENT President that can do no wrong.. and therefore never has to admit the mistakes he makes( well he is starting to apologize for some minor shortcomings of the political HACKS he put into offices.... but CERTAINLY the buck does not stop on his pristine desk)


I have seen you continually place labels.....I have continuously seen YOU apologize and come up with crap articles from crap news sources..... grasping for ANY straw to support your boys in power.... WHY.. because you desparately need to JUSTIFY YOUR beliefs...Most of the world can see the arrogance of this administration.. yet you desparately cling to some fantasy that its EVERYONE elses fault....

[mnealtx 0]

Theocracy? I guess Bill was shooting for the same thing with his "prayer meetings" with Jesse Jackson, then?

Separation of church and state? Please, do we have to go through this again? Separation of church and state is that gov't will not establish a state religion, or prevent a religion from being established, NOT that everyone in gov't has to be atheist...

Bush can do no wrong? I think most of us that aren't Bush-bashers aren't pleased with the fiscal and domestic policies... please show examples of this "blind support". You like to paint with the broad brush, but don't like it when it's applied to you - I think that's called "hypocrisy".

Spending on buddies to make billions on? Another lame old chestnut... PROVE IT. Prove that we went to war solely to "make billions for his buddies".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Wow.. more noise from the ultra right.... Prove that he didnt or doesnt instead of apologizing for his shortcomings.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Wow.. more noise from the ultra right.... Prove that he didnt or doesnt instead of apologizing for his shortcomings.

C'mon, Jeanne, you're better than this - if you want to debate, then DEBATE. As for proof - you're making the accusations, it's your job to provide the proof. I'm truly interested in seeing what you have.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Come on.. tell us how GREAT the man is..... I am waiting.. I know what he campained on.. how many of those PROMISES has he kept.....

Integrity... GONE

Smaller government....GONE

No Nation Building.....GONE


Unneccessary war that has turned into a quagmire.... YUP

Tax cuts and spending cuts for Americans....YUP

Deficits far exceeding ANYTHING we have ever seen that your GRANDCHILDREN will be paying for.... YUP

Corruption in office.. RAMPANT thruout his administration...YUP

Imperial Presidency that only Nixon and the Plummers could love.... YUP

Wiretapping HUGE numbers of americans.. DOMESTICALLY without oversite... YUP

ON a personal CRUSADE FROM GOD to punish the evildoers( as defined by him)... no matter how the world will react.... YUP


GOD you cant be that blind not to see where this is all going...

[mnealtx 0]

You're changing the subject again....

The topics at hand from your other post, awaiting proof:

Theocracy

Separation of church/state

Billions for war buddies

Let's get that post taken care of, first, ok?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SpeedRacer 1]

Dominatrix cats humping on the Internet....YUP




sorry, I'm bored at work.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Amazon 7]

Theocracy

Gee anti stem cell.. based on his religion

Gee anti gays.. based on his religion

Gee school vouchers.. based on his religion

The list goes on and on.





http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm

In the new book by journalist Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, based on taped conversations with the President, Bush describes himself as a "messenger" of God who is doing "the Lord's will." From Los Angeles Times reporter Robert Scheer:

The Jesus I know was not a war monger.. a liar... a political hack.....so whats this Lords will.. Willis

SEPARATION of Church and state.

What's most significant here, and yet gets almost zero coverage in our media, is the fact that Bush is very closely tied to the Christian Reconstructionist movement. The links between this White House and that movement are many and tight. Marvin Olasky -- a former Maoist who is now a Reconstructionist -- coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism," and was hired by the Bush campaign in 2000 to serve as their top consultant on welfare. Olasky's entire career has been financed by Howard Ahmanson, the California multimillionaire who has said publicly that his life's goal is "to integrate Biblical law into all our lives." Ahmanson funded the far-right seizure of the California legislature back in '94, and is also the main force behind the schism in the Episcopalian church. Also, he appears to be the most important advocate of the so-called "intelligent design" movement, which is creationism. Ahmanson backed Bush in 2000 -- with exactly how much money we don't know -- and is supporting him again.


PLEASE read all of the link I posted....OH THATS RIGHT you dont agree with ANY of it so its just a LIE.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

You're changing the subject again....?

You and GM can't win because you are shooting at a moving target. It moves in circles, but it always moves.

[/jawsMusic]

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

BILLIONS for War Buddies

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htm

Published on Sunday, February 8, 2004 by The Los Angeles Times
Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil
Four generations have created an unsavory web of links that could prove an election-year Achilles' heel for the president

by Kevin Phillips



In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about how "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." That complex's recent mega-leap to power came under George H.W. Bush and even more under George W. Bush — with the post-9/11 expansion of the military and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. But armaments and arms deals seem to have been in the Bushes' blood for nearly a century.


Top 1% economics: Over four generations, the Bush family has been involved with more than 20 securities firms, banks, brokerage houses and investment management firms, ranging from Wall Street giants like Brown Brothers Harriman and E.F. Hutton to small firms like J. Bush & Co. and Riggs Investment Management Corp. This relentless record of handling money for rich people has bred a vocational hauteur. In their eyes, the economic top 1% of Americans are the ones who count. Investors and their inheritors are favored — a good explanation of why George W. Bush has cut taxes on both dividends and estates, where most of the benefit goes to the top 1%. Over the course of George H.W. Bush's career, he was close to a number of the merger kings and leveraged-buyout specialists of the 1980s who came from Oklahoma and Texas: T. Boone Pickens, Henry Kravis and Hugh Liedtke. "Little guy" economics has almost no niche in the Bush economic worldview.

Debt and deficits: Whenever a Bush is president, private debt and government deficits seem to grow. Middle- and low-income Americans borrow to offset the income squeeze of recessions. The hallmark of Bush economics during both presidencies has been favoritism toward capital over workers. Federal budget deficits have soared because of a combination of upper-bracket tax favors, middle-income job shrinkage, big federal spending to hype election-year economic growth, huge defense outlays and overseas military spending for the wars in Iraq and elsewhere. Imperial hubris costs a lot of money.

SEEMs his buddies are doign pretty well.. I wonder how much STOCK/investments in OIL.. and weapons.. and HALLIBURTON.... Bush and his buddies

[Amazon 7]

Gee ............if there was ever
an actual thought/ point to be made instead of just incessant snipping perhaps we might think there was brain there somewhere.

[mnealtx 0]

Stem cell, I'll stipulate with reservations - he withheld federal funding for the research, not prevented all research.

Anti-gay? Oh, you mean that marriage amendment thing...That has actually made more progress toward equal rights for gays in regards to relationships BECAUSE it has forced the issue out in the open - how is that bad, other than they can't call it a marriage?

School vouchers - I'm sorry, I don't see how giving parents the ability to put their kids in a school of their choice to be a bad thing.

I'll remind you again that separation of Church and State means that the Government cannot establish a religion (a la "the official church of the USA will be the Church of Blumptyblump"), not that all gov't officials have to be atheists.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

And I'm sure if I investigated the listing of owners of all the stocks for those companies, I could find a lot of names in government, business and so on in them.

Your charge was that he went to war solely to gain profit for his "war buddies" - you still haven't proven that.

Boeing made a lot of money selling B52's to the .GOV - guess we went to SEA so that Kennedy/Johnson's 'war buddies' could get rich, hmm?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706