President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Bernard, If those questions you pose are important enough for you to ask, go seek those answers yourself. You'll also find that most of your q's are fishing expeditions that has no meaning to the issue at hand.

Here's another interesting little piece of info about Bush saying one thing and doing another: I just took this from the thread I just made on it, so you can go there for the link:



Anyway...


The manner in which your exposition, as illustrated via a verbose reply brimming with multisyllabic visual text representing their accompanying verbal pronounciations and ulterior communicative intentions, futher demonstrates, with indubitable salience that scrutiny of the post reveals it to be no more than excrement of a bovine nature.

Stop trying to use big words to make your arguments seem more than the waste of time to read that they really are.

No, sir, Mr. Imposter. It is clear you are not familiar with debates and discussions. When an assertion is made, there is a rebuttal. The group that made the assertions then must answer the rebuttal.

However, I think I may have an insight that will be beneficial.

If, as alleged, President Bush has lied about matters which are crucial to our country's well-being

and

If, as the left has been saying, his Job Approval Rating is very low

and

If, as the left has been saying, that low Job Approval rating will cause the supporters of the President to lose their seats in the House and Senate in November, then, the solution is quite simple.

Then, the Judicial Committee in the House, which will be headed by the very scholarly, highly temperate and most unbiased< Rep. John Conyers , Jr.of Michigan, will be duty-bound to begin proceedings for Impeachment on George W. Bush.

Then, if the left wing is correct about his egregious lies so damaging to the country, the Senate will convict him and remove him from office.

Of course, Vice-President Cheney will have to succeed him.

All of that is possible if:

The Democrats retake the House and the Senate.

In the meantime, the left wing cries of "liar, liar" mean absolutely nothing in practical terms except to underscore the partisan nature of today's politics.

As bizarre as it may seem, some of the left wing are so consumed with hate for President Bush that they are hoping and praying that more explosions and killings take place in Iraq each day just so that they can say that the President's Iraq policy was flawed.Some of the left wing, so pious in its concern for the prisoners in Gitmo, cares nothing about the lives of innocent men, women and children who are being blown to pieces by the Islamo-fascists.

Some of the left are actually pleased that the murders are continuing--if only they will besmirch President Bush's policies.

President Bush signed a bill that did what? Tripled teen-ager's tax rates?

Was that an executive order? No. It was a bill given to him by the Congress which passed it to him for his signature. You may be aware, Mr. Just an Observer, that the tax rate raise was just one of the many items in the bill that was signed by the President. That's what the Congress does. They include all types of items in a bill. The President will not veto a bill that restores the tax cuts to millions because of one small part of the entire bill.

President Bush must have been studying the masterful moves of President Clinton. I am sure, and can find evidence, that President Clinton did not really think that his backing of NAFTA, the Most Favored Nation Status of China, and, MOST OF ALL, THE DRASTIC WELFARE REFORM BILL, was something that he agreed with. But he signed them!

As you are certainly aware, Mr. Just an Observer, the government is composed of three branches, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. These branches act so that there is a system of "checks and balances" which do not allow any one branch to exert its unchecked will on the other branches.

PS. Mr. Just an Observer The" big words " you refer to won't bite you. Read them. You may learn something.

Yes, "Despite Bush's 1999 PLEDGE TO VETO ANY TAX INCREASE."
For Chrissakes, do you even bother to READ these things before you start spouting off?

And you go right back to talking about Clinton. What a waste of time you are.

I am a uniter, not a divider."

Bush is a liar.

Good God!!! A president who, as circumstances change, has to change his approach. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Would you like a list of "pledges" made by Presidents which, in the fullness of time and after changing circumstances they had to change?

I have a list.

And, again, you do not apparently understand that the
teen age "tax rate" was only one of hundreds of items included in the bill.

Do you know how legislation is crafted and passed? I have some good links for you to go to if you really wish to learn.

Bush a uniter, not a divider. Is that a campaign slogan?

It has not held up according to some people. Some people say it has.

The Clinton Campaign slogan was:

To our "Egyptian" friends who support Bush, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021125/alterman

http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html

Then lets give the President the power of the "line item veto".
That way,he can veto things like this without vetoing the whole bill.

Why does Clinton always get thrown in there when we're talking about Bush?

Hello!!!! Clinton hasn't been president for quite a few years now!

We're talking about today, not yesterday or 6-7 years ago.

So what if Clinton said that Saddam had WMD's! He didn't attack the innocent people of Iraq, Bush did!

I see. Since saying one thing and doing the opposite has been done before, then it's ok. I'll remember that. Here's a clue: just because something wrong was done in the past doesn't mean that its not wrong in the present. I know, I know... tough one to wrap your head around.



I'm sure you do, and I would be absolutely facinated to see it. Just send it to my e-mail address: "[email protected]"




WHAT? THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE ITEM IN A BILL?
Uh oh... looks like you truly are...




Careful though... MysteryMan is already "Captain Obvious." If the two of you run into one another, it may result in a battle of idiotic proportions.

Sometimes the obvious must be pointed out to someone that is to stupid to see,and to arrogantly pigheaded to admit it.

If it truly was obvious,then you would have seen it,but your partisan blinders are preventing you from seeing anything that might distort your asinine view of life.

Ok the bottom line is Bush is not a liar, he is a fu*ckhead. The VP is the liar.

I vote that he's a liar and a F*ckhead!

Mr. Kuvasz: The Nation Magazine? You cite the Nation Magazine as a credible site? The Magazine which, before the Soviets imploded, received all of its key articles from Pravda in Moscow.

Your dilemma is solved, Mr. Kuvasz.


When the GOP in the House and Senate are soundly defeated in the election to come in November 2006, the Judiciary Committee, to be headed by the brilliant and temperate scholar and lawmaker, John Conyers, Jr. will immediately work on a Bill of Impeachment for President Bush. It is clear, after reviewing the sins of the President, as portrayed on this thread, that Rep. Conyers, as the Head of the Judiciary Committee would have to do his duty.

Then, when the Senate impeaches Bush and he is removed, he will have to be replaced by Vice President Cheney.

The left wing will then have to be patient until the 2008 election when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will become president and proclaim that her administration will be the most honest one in History.

Unless President Bush is impeached and convicted, he still has 30% of his tenure remaining. All the left wing can do is to attempt to denigrate him in any way possible. The real aim of the left wing in this effort is not President Bush, since he cannot run for office again. The aim of those who are political realists is to reclaim the Senate and the House for the Democrats.

If the Democrats do not reclaim the House and Senate, President Bush will remain as president for two more years after November 2006( a couple of months later as a "Lame duck").

The left wing earnestly prays and hopes that more and more innocent Iraqi men, women and children are massacred in the bombings by the Islamo-fascists.

That is how low the Left wing has sunk. To pray for the deaths of thousands so that a president can be denigrated.

The liberals are certainly compassionate!!!

nice, kinda' like being called ugly by a pig.

Boy, the sh*t just keeps getting deeper and I think I better go grab my extra long rubber boots

Mr. Just An Observer: Here, sir, is a juicy Clinton PLEDGE!



CLINTON
ACCUSED
Main Page
News Archive
Documents
Key Players
Talk
Politics
Section









Clinton Pledges to testify "truthfully"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Peter Baker and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 1, 1998; Page A01

President Clinton pledged yesterday to testify "completely and truthfully" about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky, but said he will offer no public explanation before he submits to questioning under oath by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr in two weeks.

As Starr's investigation moves quickly toward a possible conclusion, Clinton briefly broke his long silence on the inquiry to say he was eager to put the matter behind him. He did not, however, repeat past denials of allegations that he had a sexual affair with Lewinsky and encouraged her to lie about it during the Paula Jones lawsuit.

"No one wants to get this matter behind us more than I do -- except maybe all the rest of the American people," the president said. "I am looking forward to the opportunity in the next few days of testifying. I will do so completely and truthfully. I am anxious to do it. But I hope you can understand why, in the interim, I can and should have no further comment on these matters."

After being subpoenaed by Starr, Clinton agreed this week to testify on Aug. 17 at the White House, the first time a president ever will be interrogated in a grand jury investigation of his conduct. While his attorney David E. Kendall said Wednesday that the session would be videotaped, in fact it will be transmitted live to the federal courthouse where grand jurors will watch and be allowed to forward their own questions through prosecutors, according to sources familiar with the arrangements.

Hours after Clinton's statement, Starr said he has entered "a critical stage" in his investigation and announced that he will devote his full energies to the case. After four years of criticism for maintaining a lucrative part-time law practice on the side, Starr disclosed that he will take an unpaid leave of absence "until I complete my public duties."

The ostensible purpose of Clinton's six-minute appearance in the Rose Garden yesterday was to talk about new economic figures, but aides scripted it as a chance for him to respond to a week of troublesome developments on the investigation front -- most notably that Lewinsky has agreed to testify that they had a sexual relationship and has turned over a dress that is being tested for DNA material.



Read what Clinton has said about his relationship with Lewinsky, and see the video of his Jan. 26 statement.


The dress has an identifiable stain on it, according to a legal source, but it was not certain what the stain was. The FBI laboratory is conducting tests that could definitively determine whether the president's semen is on the dress.

Lewinsky spent another day being debriefed by Starr's prosecutors and will meet with them again over the weekend in preparation for her own testimony, although there is no indication whether she will appear before or after Clinton.

Despite the latest events, the president maintained a casual, unaffected appearance, slapping his hands together jovially as he walked out of the Oval Office into the garden and employing a light tone, in contrast to his stern-faced, finger-wagging statement in January that he did not have "sexual relations with that woman." Afterward, aides called reporters to note how "very open and at ease" Clinton seemed.

Indeed, he did not even wait for a discernible question to provide his carefully prepared answer. After finishing his statement on the economy, a cacophony of shouted questions from reporters erupted. "Wait, wait, wait," Clinton said with an amused smile. "Everybody has got a question. Let me give you the answer to all of them." After his five-sentence response, he pivoted and disappeared back into the White House without taking other questions.

Starr's announcement later may have been intended to defuse a fierce and repeated theme of attacks by Clinton allies, who have criticized him for keeping his position at Chicago-based Kirkland & Ellis, where he has earned up to $1 million a year representing clients that include tobacco interests at odds with White House policies.

"Since my appointment, my duties as independent counsel have been my top priority," he said in a statement released by his office. "I have said that I would fulfill my obligations to my private clients and I have done so."

Starr argued an important case for Meineke Discount Muffler Shops Inc. before a federal appeals court in Richmond in May, but lately has spent little time on his private practice. Thomas Yannucci, managing partner of the firm's Washington office, said Starr would be welcome to return. "It's open-ended," he said.

Starr's dual roles became a point of controversy in the Jones case, too, as Clinton's attorneys tried to prove that Kirkland & Ellis had provided legal advice to her lawyers. A federal appeals court in Washington, however, refused to enforce a subpoena issued by the president's defense team to Kirkland & Ellis.

The Jones case moved to its next stage yesterday, too, as her lawyers filed their brief asking the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis to overturn the ruling of a judge who threw out the sexual harassment lawsuit in April. Among the reasons the case should be reinstated, the Jones brief argued, are Starr's ongoing investigation and Lewinsky's purported relationship with the president.

"Mr. Clinton's behavior toward Ms. Lewinsky is evidence of his habit of making aggressive sexual advances to young, low-ranking employees (those who were most vulnerable and easily exploited)," Jones's lawyers wrote.

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright refused in January to allow Jones to use evidence involving Lewinsky in the case, before ultimately dismissing the lawsuit altogether.

The Jones lawyers argued in their appeal that the ruling deprived them of important evidence, including whatever Clinton may have told Lewinsky about Jones. Moreover, in a reference to the job-hunting help Lewinsky received from Clinton's circle, they wrote, "The obvious quid pro quo aspects of the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky are strong evidence of Mr. Clinton's intent to discriminate based on gender and his intent to harass sexually."

Jones, then a low-level Arkansas state clerk, accused Clinton, then the governor, of luring her to a hotel suite in Little Rock in May 1991, dropping his pants and asking for oral sex. Clinton denied it. Wright did not judge whether it happened but ruled that such "boorish and offensive" behavior would not constitute sexual harassment and had not been proved to cause emotional distress.

The Jones lawyers argued that Wright misinterpreted the law, writing that Clinton's behavior "could be viewed by a rational jury not as the charming excesses of an affable rogue (apparently the District Court's view) but as the systematic posturing of a predator."

A Clinton lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, tried to prevent public examination of Jones's brief yesterday, filing a motion asking the appeals court to put it under seal, which the court agreed to do. The Rutherford Institute, a conservative Virginia foundation backing Jones, removed the brief from its Internet Web site after Bennett filed his motion. But The Washington Post obtained the document before it was taken off and posted it on its own World Wide Web site.

That was not the only time this week that the Clinton team has sought to keep secret details of the president's legal troubles. Kendall, who represents Clinton in the Lewinsky matter, released a statement earlier this week in which he said the president's Aug. 17 testimony "will be videotaped," suggesting that grand jurors would see it only after the fact.

But sources close to the situation said the president's testimony actually will be transmitted directly to the courthouse as it occurs. Grand jurors will be able to pose questions by passing them to a prosecutor in the chamber who will relay them to prosecutors at the White House with Clinton, the sources said.

Kendall has not returned telephone messages over three days nor explained the discrepancy to White House officials outside of the counsel's office, who were frustrated at being kept in the dark and said they consider his statement deceptive if reports of a live transmission are true.

On Capitol Hill yesterday, Sen. John D. Ashcroft (R-Mo.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and a 2000 presidential hopeful, announced that he will hold hearings exploring whether a president can be prosecuted. He denounced Clinton allies who have said he should not be impeached even if he lied in the Jones case about an affair with Lewinsky.

"I believe that perjury is unacceptable conduct and that it is an impeachable offense. How can it be otherwise?" Ashcroft said. Quoting the presidential oath of office, he added, "It is not possible to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' while deliberately violating the law against perjury."

There's Clinton again!

I am now convinced that Bernard is senile and doesn't realize that Clinton is no longer president.

poor guy!