Dem corruption starts now.

okie wrote:

It is worth mentioning that Nixon got caught involved with knowing about the wiretapping of political figures, which was nothing new at all. This from the following site:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879504,00.html?internalid=ACA

"The Senate select committee on intelligence activities last week filled out the dismaying record of Hoover's eagerness to curry favor with Presidents by using agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gather political information. The committee staffs report shows that Hoover willingly complied with improper requests from Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon."

Please note if all of these presidents had been removed from office for such activity, it would be 3 Democrats gone vs 1 Republican, including the hated Richard Nixon along with 3 beloved Democratic icons that are still worshiped and revered by liberal Democrats today.

[/i]

Just when it seemed you were running out of truly stupid remarks you posted that liberals "worshiped and revered" LBJ.

How could you say that with a straight face? Could you get more clueless and ahistoric?

Johnson was revered only for his actions to bring about equal civil rights towards black Americans, which likely you don't agree with anyway.

The lack of support by liberals in 67-68 forced LBJ not to seek re-election. You can't get any more stupid about American history, unless you called Abraham Lincoln the president of the Confederate States of America. But if you want to know, every president since Roosevelt could be considered a war criminal according to the Geneva Convention due to executive actions carried out during their terms. Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (the Greater), Clinton and Bush (the Lesser). That's six Democratic war criminal presidents and six Republican war criminal presidents.

What you and your fellow mouth breathing travelers on the Far Right fail to fathom is that most normal folk don't hold up these guys in some sort of pagan Pantheon of idolatry and worship them. Normal people know they have clay feet and your remark of Democratic adolation is merely transference of the mindless authoritarian streak conservatives exhibit of following leaders through hell, high water, or Iraq

Roosevelt was excoriated by liberals for Japanese internments in the 40's, Truman for seizing the coal mines and steel plants from strikers and both Kennedy and Johnson the same for wiretaps, especially on civil rights leaders, (unless you think it was a good thing to tap Martin Luther King's phone), but anyway, that was done originally under the Eisenhower Administration.

But only Nixon made up an "enemies list" and used the IRS to hound his adversaries.

I am really stunned by your willful and blatant ignorance shown of historical facts and how you cobble together urban myth with political hacksterism to create a world view seen usually only by deranged mental patients or those who ingest massive quantities of psychedelics.

I have dealt with chronic pcp users more lucid about reality.

You really need to read a frigging history book once in a while before you post your awful brain offal and embarass yourself in public; listening to you spout on about history makes as much sense as listening to my two kuvasz about quantum physics.

Also, you must have missed the accusations against Clinton concerning auditing and intimidating his political enemies with the IRS.

Well, I certainly do not see any articles to speak of in the media calling your Democrats war criminals. I don't know where you get your information. um, that would be history books

Hey, FDR especially is held up as some sort of hero of the 20th century. I don't remember where, but not too long ago I saw an article suggesting he was the greatest president of the 20th century, and it certainly did not suggest he was a war criminal.

If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged. By violation of the Nuremberg laws I mean the same kind of crimes for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And Nuremberg means Nuremberg and Tokyo. So first of all you've got to think back as to what people were hanged for at Nuremberg and Tokyo. And once you think back, the question doesn't even require a moment's waste of time. For example, one general at the Tokyo trials, which were the worst, General Yamashita, was hanged on the grounds that troops in the Philippines, which were technically under his command (though it was so late in the war that he had no contact with them -- it was the very end of the war and there were some troops running around the Philippines who he had no contact with), had carried out atrocities, so he was hanged. Well, try that one out and you've already wiped out everybody.

But getting closer to the sort of core of the Nuremberg-Tokyo tribunals, in Truman's case at the Tokyo tribunal, there was one authentic, independent Asian justice, an Indian, who was also the one person in the court who had any background in international law [Radhabinod Pal], and he dissented from the whole judgment, dissented from the whole thing. He wrote a very interesting and important dissent, seven hundred pages -- you can find it in the Harvard Law Library, that's where I found it, maybe somewhere else, and it's interesting reading. He goes through the trial record and shows, I think pretty convincingly, it was pretty farcical. He ends up by saying something like this: if there is any crime in the Pacific theater that compares with the crimes of the Nazis, for which they're being hanged at Nuremberg, it was the dropping of the two atom bombs. And he says nothing of that sort can be attributed to the present accused. Well, that's a plausible argument, I think, if you look at the background. Truman proceeded to organize a major counter-insurgency campaign in Greece which killed off about one hundred and sixty thousand people, sixty thousand refugees, another sixty thousand or so people tortured, political system dismantled, right-wing regime. American corporations came in and took it over. I think that's a crime under Nuremberg.

You could argue over whether his overthrow of the government of Guatemala was a crime. There was a CIA-backed army, which went in under U.S. threats and bombing and so on to undermine that capitalist democracy. I think that's a crime. The invasion of Lebanon in 1958, I don't know, you could argue. A lot of people were killed. The overthrow of the government of Iran is another one -- through a CIA-backed coup. But Guatemala suffices for Eisenhower and there's plenty more.

The Basy of Pigs invasion of Cuba was outright aggression. Eisenhower planned it, incidentally, so he was involved in a conspiracy to invade another country, which we can add to his score. After the invasion of Cuba, Kennedy launched a huge terrorist campaign against Cuba, which was very serious. No joke. Bombardment of industrial installations with killing of plenty of people, bombing hotels, sinking fishing boats, sabotage. Later, under Nixon, it even went as far as poisoning livestock and so on. Big affair. And then came Vietnam; he invaded Vietnam. He invaded South Vietnam in 1962. He sent the U.S. Air Force to start bombing.

The Indochina war alone, forget the invasion of the Dominican Republic, was a major war crime.

Nixon invaded Cambodia. The Nixon-Kissinger bombing of Cambodia in the early '70's was not all that different from the Khmer Rouge atrocities, in scale somewhat less, but not much less. Same was true in Laos.

He supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was near genocidal. I mean, it makes Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait look like a tea party. That was supported decisively by the United States, both the diplmatic and the necessary military support came primarily from the United States. This was picked up under Carter.

He did things which would certainly fall under Nuremberg provisions. As the Indonesian atrocities increased to a level of really near-genocide, the U.S. aid under Carter increased. It reached a peak in 1978 as the atrocities peaked.

It's not a question. The Contra stuff in Central America alone suffices. Support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon also makes Saddam Hussein look pretty mild in terms of casualties and destruction. That suffices.

In fact, in the Reagan period there's even an International Court of Justice decision on what they call the "unlawful use of force" for which Reagan and Bush were condemned. I mean, you could argue about some of these people, but I think you could make a pretty strong case if you look at the Nuremberg decisions, Nuremberg and Tokyo, and you ask what people were condemned for. I think American presidents are well within the range.

The bombing fiasco in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.

Also, bear in mind, people ought to be pretty critical about the Nuremberg principles. I don't mean to suggest they're some kind of model of probity or anything. For one thing, they were ex post facto. These were determined to be crimes by the victors after they had won. Now, that already raises questions. In the case of the American presidents, they weren't ex post facto. Furthermore, you have to ask yourself what was called a "war crime"?

How did they decide what was a war crime at Nuremberg and Tokyo? And the answer is pretty simple. and not very pleasant. There was a criterion. Kind of like an operational criterion. If the enemy had done it and couldn't show that we had done it, then it was a war crime. So like bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a war crime because we had done more of it than the Germans and the Japanese. So that wasn't a war crime. You want to turn Tokyo into rubble? So much rubble you can't even drop an atom bomb there because nobody will see anything if you do, which is the real reason they didn't bomb Tokyo. That's not a war crime because we did it. Bombing Dresden is not a war crime. We did it. German Admiral Gernetz -- when he was brought to trial (he was a submarine commander or something) for sinking merchant vessels or whatever he did -- he called as a defense witness American Admiral Nimitz who testified that the U.S. had done pretty much the same thing, so he was off, he didn't get tried. And in fact if you run through the whole record, it turns out a war crime is any war crime that you can condemn them for but they can't condemn us for. Well, you know, that raises some questions.

I should say, actually, that this, interestingly, is said pretty openly by the people involved and it's regarded as a moral position. The chief prosecutor at Nuremberg was Telford Taylor. You know, a decent man. He wrote a book called Nuremberg and Vietnam. And in it he tries to consider whether there are crimes in Vietnam that fall under the Nuremberg principles. Predictably, he says not. But it's interesting to see how he spells out the Nuremberg principles.

Nice collection of words to express your sarcasm, kuvasz, but you need to back it up with valid examples. I think you failed to prove I am wrong about much of anything on this post. Perhaps I stretched it a bit to say Democrats worship and revere all of those men the same, perhaps LBJ was not so great in your minds, but certainly FDR and JFK were almost worship status. They died in office and that nasty American strain of patriotism that makes you mindlessly follow Bush and kiss his ass elevates our presidents to heroes did it.

And LBJ looms large in the liberal mind because of his "Great Society," which I believe was an utter failure. two words; "Viet Nam," and then three more; "guns and butter" Of course, to go on a bit of a tangent, JFK was not all that liberal on many issues, but mainly because he was "Camelot" and he liked his women, the liberal Democrats loved him.

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.

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky.

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

The perjury allegations provoked the Arkansas Supreme Court to suspend Clinton's law license in April 2000. Clinton agreed to the 5-year suspension and to pay a $25,000 fine on January 19, 2001.

The following October, the U.S. Supreme Court once again suspended Clinton's law license and gave him 40 days to convince them that he should not be disbarred permanently. Clinton surrendered his law license in response to these actions. Clinton has since made a living as an author and speaker.

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[10]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [11]

kuvasz, I knew you were a leftist, but I am getting a clearer picture now. Apparently, you are to the left of just about every Democrat in memory, to call them all war criminals along with the Republicans. So what does Noam Chomsky have to say about Joseph Stalin and Ho Chi Minh? Just how many million people did they cause to die according to Chomsky?

Kuvasz, you must be joking. No one is that stupid.
You seem to be.

Bill Clinton to the public:

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.

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

Bill Clinton in depostion for Paula Jones (Wikipedia):

Quote:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky.

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

Definition of "sexual relations" (as if there's a second human on earth that doesn't consider a blowjob sexual relations):

Quote:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

Anybody who doesn't have their head stuck too far up their A$$ can see that he was lying through his teeth and that he did indeed perjure himself.

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

That is quite obviously why he was impeached in the first place. If it wasn't for 45 out of 45 Democratic Senators turning the blind eye to the truth (along with 5 and 10 republicans on Articles 1 and 3) he would have been convicted as well. House impeached him by margins of 228-206 and 221-212 on Articles 1 and 3 respectively. Articles 1 and 3:
Article I: Perjury before grand jury on August 17, 1998
Article III: Obstruction of justice related to Paula Jones case

Further, for his obvious perjury (Wikipedia);

Quote:

The perjury allegations provoked the Arkansas Supreme Court to suspend Clinton's law license in April 2000. Clinton agreed to the 5-year suspension and to pay a $25,000 fine on January 19, 2001.

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

Further, for his obvious perjury (Wikipedia)

Quote:

The following October, the U.S. Supreme Court once again suspended Clinton's law license and gave him 40 days to convince them that he should not be disbarred permanently. Clinton surrendered his law license in response to these actions. Clinton has since made a living as an author and speaker.

More Wikipedia:

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

Quote:

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[10]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [11]

Is it perjury or not? Was he convicted of it or not?

Yet Kuvasz sits here and insults people for bringing up the obvious truth of the matter. He many be a clever liar; but he's a liar just the same.

Clinton did not commit perjury.

The aftermath: contempt of court citation
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[10]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ." [11]

In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign.

Oh sweet Jesus on the Cross, how can you think in such a feeble way?

I've never been convicted of a drug offense. Does that mean I've never taken drugs? You're forwarding the argument of an idiot. How dare you call me a liar for speaking the well known truth?

How dare you call me a liar for speaking the well known truth?

Anyway, as soon as you mentioned Chomsky as one of your sources of information, I lost interest, and pretty much consider you a lost cause in terms of any logical debate about anything.

Clinton did not commit perjury.

Clinton did not commit perjury.

Kuvasz wrote:

Clinton did not commit perjury.

Yes, he did. He was impeached and lost his Law license as a result of it.

He was impeached and lost his Law license as a result of it.

btw: I don't really think you are a worthless c*cks*cker... that was a low blow, but teabagger...maybe.

That was actually one of your better arguments. Continuing to pretend commit and convict are synonymous remains idiotic.

Play word games all day long if it makes you happy, but the FACTs remain the same. Had Clinton not perjured himself; he wouldn't have been impeached and he wouldn't have had his license suspended.

Clinton himself admitted to his lies. How is it even possible that idiots continue to deny them?