Libby indicted

The difference being that Clinton actually lied. Bush only lied in your vivid fantasy life.

Ticomaya wrote:

The difference being that Clinton actually lied. Bush only lied in your vivid fantasy life.

The difference is in your standard of misleading statements are only lies if a Dem makes them.

You can't show me a single lie by Clinton in the Paula Jones deposition and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. You can argue the "alone" argument all day but it doesnt' show much of anything. Are you alone if there is someone else in the house? Are you alone if someone is with you? "Alone" is not really that specific without qualifiers. It is wide open to interpretation.

When Clinton was asked, "At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?", his response was, "I don't recall ..."

Clinton was careful not to make an outright denial, and instead he responded that he remembered one or two times when Lewinsky came to drop off some papers for him in the Oval Office. This was apparently true, because Monica did go to the Oval Office and brought some papers. But he failed to mention that she did more than just drop off some papers. Oh, and it develops that they were alone like 10 to 15 times.

Let's not forget this exchange during his deposition:

Quote:

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

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

In his January 17, 1998, sworn deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit, Clinton swore under oath as follows:

Quote:

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. (BS) 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. (BS)

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.

(Note: "(BS)" stands for "intentionally misleading.")

Ticomaya wrote:

The difference being that Clinton actually lied. Bush only lied in your vivid fantasy life.

The difference is in your standard of misleading statements are only lies if a Dem makes them.

You can't show me a single lie by Clinton in the Paula Jones deposition and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. You can argue the "alone" argument all day but it doesnt' show much of anything. Are you alone if there is someone else in the house? Are you alone if someone is with you? "Alone" is not really that specific without qualifiers. It is wide open to interpretation.

Did Clinton mislead in the deposition? Yes.

Did he lie? I don't think so. He weaseled. He wasn't completely truthful

Bush also weaseled and wasn't completely truthful when it came to intelligence about WMD in Iraq. If Clinton's statements are lies then so are Bush's.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles BS-- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel,BS Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areasBS. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons programBS. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the pastBS. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubesBS and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

Tico..
Gee lets play the BS game with Bush's statements

Quote:

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles BS-- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel,BS Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areasBS. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

Quote:

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons programBS. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the pastBS. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubesBS and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

Just a few of the misleading statements from Bush about Iraq. Bush's statements are no more true than Clinton's. Giving Bush a pass proves you don't apply a standard other than politics, Tico. None of these statements by Bush are true. They are misleading and misrepresent the intelligence.

...

(Note: "(BS)" stands for "intentionally misleading.")

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.

From my prior post ...

Ticomaya wrote:

...

(Note: "(BS)" stands for "intentionally misleading.")

And you judge intent how? I say Bush INTENDED to mislead. You say Clinton intended to mislead. Your subjective standard is showing again Tico. The rest of your garbage post addresses none of the specific BS statements I pointed out.

There is NO evidence to suggest that Iraq had missiles capable of travelling hundreds of miles. There was none then and none now. Bush clearly INTENDED to mislead since the intelligence did NOT support it.

Sooooooo, Libby indicted.

Libby indicted but Hillary is a bitch!

dyslexia wrote:

Libby indicted but Hillary is a bitch!

Nah, you mean:

HILLARY IS A BITCH

CLINTON HAS SEX!!!


[size=7]Libby indicted[/size]