President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Sure. If by agression you mean "They've been talking badly about us Americans."

Otherwise you have a bit of catching up to do, methinks....

Let's see; Saddam showed "aggression towards us." How was that? With his mouth? He sure didn't have the weapons or delivery system to even attack within 1,000 miles of Iraq.

I wonder how okie would describe what America has shown towards Iraq....

Tender loving care, maybe?

Yeah, they deserved the US invasion and our killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Hell, they had a bad leader!

Our duly elected representatives disagree with you. If you have a bone to pick, go complain to them. All the arguments you make have been looked at and rejected by Congress. The decision to go to war has already been made by your representatives and the President. Cicerone, do you now have any positive suggestions or policies to follow from this point instead of criticism? What is your platform that you support? Democrats are having a very hard time with knowing what they believe. Yesterday it was one thing. Today its another. Tomorrow, it will be something else. What is yours, really?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199775,00.html

No CI, that's not it. All those people had to die, including the Americans, so they could have freedom. Freedom is worth more than human life. There should never be a limit on the number of people that can be killed so our wonderful system of democracy can be imposed on others.

xingu, And in Iraq's democracy, all those that kill Americans will be exempted from any laws for murder. Their own military are killing other sect members, raping their women, and applying their religious' beliefs into their constitution. A great democracy by anybody's standard.

Well, that depends how you look at it, but it's an entirely different argument from the one you were making before, namely that



You may retract that statement, though.

Quote from Bush at War by Bob Woodward- P. 351---

quote

"...on October 10th and 11th the House and the Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally, The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate to defend against the threat of Iraq"

end of quote

Okie- Don't you think all of those people who are for us cutting and running from Iraq should work to get the people who voted for the war--people who have PRESIDENT BUSH THE AUTHORITY to go to war--voted out of their jobs in November.

That would include Democrats also--Note the 296 to 133 vote!


But, Okie, the comments made by old europe and xingu are worthless in light of the advice that President Bush took from the most intelligent policy wonk ever to grace the White House- President Bill Clinton.

Okie-they probably do not know that Clinton left advice for Bush in his speech of Dec. 16th 1998 when Clinton defended his pre-emptive attack on Baghdad. Clinton said--"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. THE BEST WAY TO END THAT THREAT ONE AND FOR ALL IS WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT"

Gee, Okie, it almost sounds as if the leader of the Democratic Party wants to REMOVE Saddam from power!

That, Okie, shows you that old europe, xingu and Imposter don't know what they are talking about!

Tuesday December 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Judiciary Democrats issue report alleging gross misconduct by Bush over Iraq
RAW STORY



In order to expedite getting the story out, RAW STORY has reproduced the executive summary of the report here. Following the executive summary there is a link to the full report.

#
Executive Summary

This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President's failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate. Mr. Conyers asked staff, by year end 2005, to review the available information concerning possible misconduct by the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War and post-invasion statements and actions, and to develop legal conclusions and make legislative and other recommendations to him.


In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters or responding to these charges, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

In addition, we believe the failure of the President, Vice President and others in the Bush Administration to respond to a myriad requests for information concerning these charges, or to otherwise account for explain a number of specific misstatements they have made in the run up to War and other actions warrants, at minimum, the introduction and Congress' approval of Resolutions of Censure against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.

Further, we recommend that Ranking Member Conyers and others consider referring the potential violations of federal criminal law detailed in this Report to the Department of Justice for investigation; Congress should pass legislation to limit government secrecy, enhance oversight of the Executive Branch, request notification and justification of presidential pardons of Administration officials, ban abusive treatment of detainees, ban the use of chemical weapons, and ban the practice of paying foreign media outlets to publish news stories prepared by or for the Pentagon; and the House should amend its Rules to permit Ranking Members of Committees to schedule official Committee hearings and call witnesses to investigate Executive Branch misconduct.

The Report rejects the frequent contention by the Bush Administration that there pre-war conduct has been reviewed and they have been exonerated. No entity has ever considered whether the Administration misled Americans about the decision to go to War, and the Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet conducted a review of pre-war intelligence information, while the Silberman-Robb report specifically cautioned, that intelligence manipulation "was not part of our inquiry." There has also not been any independent inquiry concerning torture and other legal violations in Iraq; nor has there been an independent review of the pattern of cover-ups and political retribution by the Bush Administration against its critics, other than the very narrow and still ongoing inquiry of Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

While the scope of this Report is largely limited to Iraq, it also holds lessons for our Nation at a time of entrenched one-party rule and abuse of power in Washington. If the present Administration is willing to flaunt, if not break, the law in order to achieve its political objectives in Iraq, and Congress is unwilling to confront or challenge their hegemony, many of our cherished democratic principles are in jeopardy. This is true not only with respect to the Iraq War, but also other areas of foreign policy, privacy and civil liberties, and matters of economic and social justice. Indeed as this Report is being finalized, we have just learned of another potential significant abuse of executive power by the President, ordering the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying and wiretapping without obtaining court approval in possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It is tragic that our Nation has invaded another sovereign nation because "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," as stated in the Downing Street Minutes. It is equally tragic that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have been unwilling to examine these facts or take action to prevent this scenario from occurring again. Since they appear unwilling to act, it is incumbent on individual Members of Congress as well as the American public to act to protect our constitutional form of government.

READ THE FULL CONYERS REPORT (PDF)

So much for congress' approval for Bush to go to war. THEY WERE MISLEAD!

BernardR, I love it when their feet are held to the fire. The only thing that matters are the votes. All the rhetoric is worthless. And I love to watch them squirm and hear them whine about having to vote on something they've demonized and flipflopped over numerous times. Reminds me of the woman that sued McDonalds over hot coffee. If the coffee had not been hot, she would have whined and moaned over it not being hot enough. Its just a sign of the times, that people do not wish to take responsibility for their own actions. Hey, even in education, if little Johnny says 2 + 2 = 5, he isn't wrong anymore. He still gets an A for effort. A little bit of an oversimplification, but it captures the essence of what is going on now. This includes politics. If they voted for something they later wished they had not voted for, they couldn't be wrong, no way, and they work 24/7 to prove they were misled or duped or something. It was somebody else's fault. They are never wrong. No, never. I'm sure you've noticed this BernardR.



Don't need to. The agression was more direct with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but Saddam Hussein had shown himself openly hostile for how long? And now, the administration is being proven more correct all the time, with information coming forth that Hussein did indeed have a relationship with Al Qaeda. Still no direct link with 911, but who knows what we will find out eventually. I wouldn't bet on it but who knows? Remember the Bush Doctrine, which Congress and the American people all agreed with. It went something like this: Any country or regime that supports or harbors terrorists have already attacked us, so we have every right to go after them wherever they are.

Do we need to recount all the reasons again why we took Hussein out? There were several and ample enough.

Yes, only the vote matters now, but you must have missed the following paragraph:

There is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

The fact is none of your seven points have ever come close to being proven against the president. They are all accusations by left wing extremists, like Michael Moore, Moveon.org, etc. Under your definition, if anybody has a different opinion or interprets evidence differently then you do, it is now defined as lying. Hogwash. Using your standards of judgement, virtually every wartime president would all be guilty of your accusations.

The question is, what does the Democratic Party really stand for? Do you have a plan? Even your hero, Hillary, now supports staying in Iraq to finish the job. I think.

The world is uniting against the United States. Bush and the Republicans have no respect for American law or democracy. It is clear the only thing Bush respects is money and violence. So the world is ready to speak his language and half the country is united against him too.

Bush has built his presidency on lies, deception and corruption and it cannot be maintained on that for much longer and we will all be diligent to make sure it falls.

He has trampled everything American and warrants absolutely no loyalty. In fact desent is the most partotic action anybody can exercise right now.

okie, The fact that congress and the supreme court have failed their duties to uphold the Constitution is the failure of our government; not the laws of our country.

The seven points outlined in the article has merit to only people that believes in upholding the laws of this country. That most Americans are ignorant on the prima facie case against this administration only shows how Americans really don't understand the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Civil Rights of its citizens. Democracy loses when we sacrifice our Constitutional rights; something righties like you would never understand.

According to you.
You refuse to accept the fact that maybe they have looked at the "evidence",and see it differently then you.

Why is that a "failure of our Govt",if the people whose job it is to uphold the laws dont see it the same way you do?

When did they hold hearings? I must have been out of the country during that 5 month period.

The job of the Congress it to oversee the government. Just claiming they "looked at it" doesn't really meet the standard of oversight in my mind.

Exactly where in article 1 of the Constitution does it mandate that the job of Congress is to "oversee the government"

Article 1 lays out the duties of congress,and NOTHING in thre says that they are the govt "overseers".

mm, Your lack of knowledge about how our government is supposed to work just shows how ignorant you really are.

The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.

With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

The three branches of the U.S. Government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. A complete diagram of the branches of the U.S. Government may be found in the U.S. Government Manual (PDF, 9.7k).


As I've said earlier, our government has failed in its responsibilities, because the administration, congress and supreme court are controlled by one party. They have failed their responsibility to check the powers of the president.