Bush supporters' aftermath thread

What other US president before Mr Bush has done as much damage to the ideals, laws, and status of the USA, and to the international community?

Actually, Bill Clinton is pretty high on my list of worsts. I never seem to be able to get past lying under oath as an acceptable thing for a sitting President to do.

I'm not sure how that makes it right for Clinton to lie under oath, BBB.

!

I think 100% of men accused of cheating on their wives would lie. Impeaching Clinton for lying about sex was a political vendetta and it's pursuit cost the tax payers millions of dollars what we could use right now. As far as I know, no one has died from a blow job.

Lying about issues that result in death and mayhem is unforgivable.

J_B wrote:

I'm not sure how that makes it right for Clinton to lie under oath, BBB.

Did I say it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath? NO!

I think 100% of men accused of cheating on their wives would lie. Impeaching Clinton for lying about sex was a political vendetta and it's pursuit cost the tax payers millions of dollars what we could use right now. As far as I know, no one has died from a blow job.

Lying about issues that result in death and mayhem is unforgivable.

Do you suppose we could put a stop to lying about reasons for going to war if doing so would automatically result in presidential impeachment being put before the Congress.

BBB

I didn't see anyone trying to equate the two. If you show me where GWB lied under oath about WMD's then I'll start pushing my Congressmen to impeach him too.

I didn't see anyone trying to equate the two. If you show me where GWB lied under oath about WMD's then I'll start pushing my Congressmen to impeach him too.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

J_B wrote:

I'm not sure how that makes it right for Clinton to lie under oath, BBB.

Did I say it was OK for Clinton to lie under oath? NO!

I think 100% of men accused of cheating on their wives would lie. Impeaching Clinton for lying about sex was a political vendetta and it's pursuit cost the tax payers millions of dollars what we could use right now. As far as I know, no one has died from a blow job.

Lying about issues that result in death and mayhem is unforgivable.

Do you suppose we could put a stop to lying about reasons for going to war if doing so would automatically result in presidential impeachment being put before the Congress.

BBB

Actually, Clinton used the same parsing of words that all politicians use. Henry Hyde called an affair he had when he was in his forties a "youthful indiscretion." That is a lie under the same strict standards Clinton was held to. Of coure, there is what is called proportionality and Tyco of all people should know that if the same standards of telling truth were applied in divorce court, almost everyone involved in a divorce would be charged with perjury.

Janet Reno should have never given Starr the go ahead to investigate a sex scandal. Of course, at that time, there was some question about Clinton conspiring with Lewinski and Jordan to obstruct justice. When there was no there there, the matter should have been dropped.

Here we go ...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1339858#1339858

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Tico,
What was the lie Clinton told?

I see lots of instances of telling factually true statements based on narrow definitions to give an impression that they might mean something else.

Clinton himself stated

Quote:

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information

How can it be accurate and a lie?

Definition of sexual relationship is "intercourse". That is certainly not a lie. It was a weasel perhaps in it gave an impression that there was no sexual contact at all but there is no evidence that they did have intercourse.

We can argue word meanings all day but then we get to the same issue with Bush. The meanings of words and if they mean what you think or we think. Based on Bush's statements, Bush weaseled. He intentionally gave an impression that wasn't true.

Clinton misled about his affair. Bush misled about WMD. Not much difference between the two.

What lie? Where to start?

How about when he was asked "At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?" His response: "I don't recall ..." Do you find that factually accurate?

How about this exchange:

Quote:

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.

You think that was a factually accurate statement?

He lied ... that's why he lost his license to practice law -- his misleading testimony.

We know Clinton "weaseled" out of a desire to mislead, knowing he was telling an untruth. That isn't the case with Bush. That's what you anti-Bush folks can't seem to understand .... you insist that he started the war on false pretenses, and "lied" to get us to war, but it's just not the case.

Intrepid wrote:

We may not get the truth today and we may not get the truth tomorrow, but the truth will come out and history will record it.

That depends what you mean by the word "get."

:wink:

Here's another fun post ...

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1339524#1339524

Ticomaya wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

I replied, but the system froze before it got to the thread.

What I was posting was to the effect that you know as well as I do that it is very difficult to "prove" a lie unless the admition comes from the prevaricator's own lips or from photographic evidence. You indicated that you would believe a lie detector no matter who took it because they are unreliable. I take this to mean that you would not believe them. You claimed that Bill Clinton lied, but you did not indicate what he lied about or what proof you have to back up this claim. I doubt that this will go anywhere but except in circles with he said she said testimonials. I doubt very much that you will belief the link either.

http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html

---



Here you go:

Quote:

Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

That was Clinton on TV on January 26, 1998. Here's the VIDEO


Earlier, in a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton swore under oath as follows:

Quote:

Deposition in the Jones sexual harassment lawsuit

January 17, 1998

(The full text of the deposition is also online.)

Q. At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A. I don't recall (BS), but as I said, when she worked at the legislative affairs office, they always had somebody there on the weekends. I typically worked some on the weekends. Sometimes they'd bring me things on the weekends. She - it seems to me she brought things to me once or twice on the weekends. In that case, whatever time she would be in there, drop it off, exchange a few words and go, she was there. I don't have any specific recollections of what the issues were, what was going on, but when the Congress is there, we're working all the time, and typically I would do some work on one of the days of the weekends in the afternoon.

Q. So I understand, your testimony is that it was possible, then, that you were alone with her, but you have no specific recollection of that ever happening?

A. Yes, that's correct. It's possible that she, in, while she was working there, brought something to me and that at the time she brought it to me, she was the only person there. That's possible.

. . .

Q. Have you ever met with Monica Lewinsky in the White House between the hours of midnight and six a.m.?

A. I certainly don't think so.

Q. Have you ever met -

A. Now, let me just say, when she was working there, during, there may have been a time when we were all - we were up working late. There are lots of, on any given night, when the Congress is in session, there are always several people around until late in the night, but I don't have any memory of that. I just can't say that there could have been a time when that occurred, I just - but I don't remember it.(BS)

Q. Certainly if it happened, nothing remarkable would have occurred?

A. No, nothing remarkable. I don't remember it.(BS)

. . .

Q. Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?

A. No.(BS)

Q. If she told someone that she had a sexual affair with you beginning in November of 1995, would that be a lie?

A. It's certainly not the truth. It would not be the truth.

Q. I think I used the term "sexual affair." And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court.

. . .

A. I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her.(BS)

He also lied about the affair in an interview with Jim Lehrer, in a telephone interview with Roll Call, and an interview with NPR, all on January 21, 1998.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm


Clinton also denied the affair with Lewinsky in a sworn affidavit he filed in the Paula Jones lawsuit.

---

Six months later, when it was clear his lies were catching up to him, he came clean. On August 17, 1998, after Lewinsky testified about their sexual encounters, Clinton testified before a grand jury and admitted to the affair. He also said the following on national TV:

Quote:

As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html


As I said, Clinton is a self-admitted liar, and he lied under oath.

Will the real liars please stand up?
David Limbaugh (archive)

July 1, 2005

Democrat leaders, preparing their rebuttal to the president's speech even before he delivered it, said he should concede he made mistakes as a means to reclaiming credibility on Iraq -- as if they actually want him to have greater credibility.

In the same breath they say he lied to get us into war -- an offense so grave that some of them are advocating he be impeached over it. While national Democrat politicians have long been confused over the distinction between intentional wrongs and mistakes -- thanks to Bill Clinton successfully depicting his pre-meditated transgressions as mistakes -- isn't it clear that if President Bush lied to get us into the war, he didn't merely make a mistake?

But let's explore this beyond semantics. As everyone should know by now, President Bush based his decision to attack on intelligence information provided to him and which he didn't pressure the intelligence agencies to exaggerate. The intelligence agencies of most other nations, including those who nevertheless refused to join us against Iraq, concurred that Saddam was amassing WMD stockpiles.

This assessment was bolstered by Saddam's intractable behavior in persistently defying U.N. weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide and repeatedly violating U.N. resolutions. He had the burden of proving he had disposed of the WMD he demonstrably had and used on his own people, but instead submitted a bogus 12,000-page document, virtually inviting us to attack.

President Bush believed -- and the evidence confirms -- that Saddam's Iraq was a safe haven for international terrorists not unlike Afghanistan under the Taliban. Credible reports have emerged that some of his henchmen were present at 9-11 planning meetings.

But Democrats contend that our failure to find Saddam's WMD stockpiles after we deposed him proves that President Bush lied about their existence in the first place. President Bush's reliance on the best available intelligence, though it may have turned out to be wrong, doesn't make him a liar or prove that he made a mistake in attacking. He would have made a mistake had he failed to act on the information he had, especially considering Saddam's self-incriminating behavior.

As I've written before, Democrats are the ones who are lying when they say they weren't relying on the very same intelligence in supporting the Iraq war resolution. And they are lying when they falsely accuse President Bush of lying about the intelligence.

Among the worst of them is Sen. Kerry, who still pathetically clings to the fantasy that he can be president someday. In his latest lurch for relevance -- on "Larry King Live" -- he again accused President Bush of deceiving the American people, this time by constantly switching his rationale for attacking Iraq: from WMD, to spreading democracy, to suppressing a "hotbed of terrorism."

But it's Kerry who's doing the misleading. From the very beginning, President Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq was that under Saddam, she was our enemy in the global war on terror and a threat -- indirect and direct -- to our national security. The three reasons Kerry cites are not incompatible, but of a piece. President Bush believed Saddam was amassing WMD and acting in concert with Islamic terrorists. And, he's always had a vision that the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East would be a natural antidote to the proliferation of terrorism. That's not why we attacked Iraq, because we are not in the business of gratuitous nation building, but it's a potentially glorious byproduct that we shouldn't underestimate and is certainly consistent with our war aims.

No matter how incapable Kerry's Democrats are of comprehending this, 9-11 confirmed that Islamic radicals throughout the world are at war with the United States. The terrorist threat is not localized to Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Democrats' quixotic refrain that we concentrate our resources only on capturing Saddam reveals how radically they misapprehend the global scope of this war.

Saddam was begging to be removed, and President Bush neither lied nor made a mistake in removing him. But he would be making a catastrophic mistake if he acceded to the Democrats' suicidal demand that we telegraph a withdrawal date for our troops in Iraq or take other action to undermine our cause -- and the cause of the Iraqi people -- there.

While I'm sure President Bush appreciates all their unsolicited advice and carping, Democrats might be well advised to clean up their own house for a change. Instead of gloating over the president's inconsistent poll numbers, they might awaken to the sobering fact that they are the ones who have been losing elections and need help in the credibility department, especially concerning national security.

But until they demonstrate some comprehension of the global reach and gravity of this war, quit exploiting every morsel of negative news flowing from Iraq for political purposes and start supporting our cause, it's hard to envision a scenario where Americans will entrust them with safeguarding our national security.

New Bush Hurricane Targeting Gay Community

In the terrible aftermath of Hurricane KKKatrina, the nation watched with renewed horror - if not a certain sense of schadenfreude - as Hurricane Ophelia bore down on the white republican stronghold of Florida. Then she suddenly veered away, no doubt after a late night phone call from Brother Jeb to Brother Shrub, and made a beeline for North Carolina and its 1.5 million Blacks. Now, Bush's latest hurricane is targeting the Florida Keys, specifically Key West, admired for its vibrant gay community and vociferous opposition to George Bush.

Bush's infamous intolerance for diversity is about to claim its next round of victims. Even as New Orleans slowly recovers, Bush's "cleansing" of the Keys has already begun. The doors and windows on hundreds of gay discos have been boarded up. Thousands of frightened citizens have already pranced to higher ground, with thousands more certain to flounce, flit, or sashay away in the coming hours. Once the storm has passed and the giant cloud of purple feathers and dimpled chads has settled, Bush will be free to build his own Gulag Archipelago - a string of miniature Guantanamos where Muslim same-sex couples and flamboyantly gay freedom fighters will be held without due process.

Halliburton is probably drawing up the blueprints as I type.