How many lives were lost over it. I suppose you condone all the lies the Bush administration handed out over his 8 years in office.Originally Posted by david gibson
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
How many lives were lost over it. I suppose you condone all the lies the Bush administration handed out over his 8 years in office.
Bush 43 took an oath to uphold the Constitution then trampled all over the it.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
why dont you stick to the topic at hand - the issue is impeachable offense. bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony.
now, please tell me exactly how many lives were lost due to proven lies concocted and told directly by bush???
ps: wmd doesnt fit in that category so take the broken record off the turntable
Quote:
Originally Posted by depittydawg
His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.
and the broken record speaks AGAIN
must be really boring in your head
Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."
David this is from a source that you quoted, or did you not read your own article that you posted in another thread?
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-w...da-says/26514/
The topic at hand was actually campaign dirty tricks, which makes the entire discussion of Clinton off topic. Of course, your definition of changing the subject is anything that points to Republican problems while you are busy point the finger at Democrats.
You said that "bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony". For the record, Clinton was never convicted of a felony either. He was found in contempt of court and fned. The civil suit against him was dismissed for lack of evidence of damages. The charges against him in the Senate were dismissed by a majority of the Senate, although only a one-third vote against conviction was needed to dismiss the charges. So where's the felony?
same as oj - he committed it, but wasnt convicted of it. big difference there. the fact that he clearly committed the offense gives justification for further investigation and the impeachment process. that impeachment failed is one thing, but they clearly had good reason to bring the charge. so nothing to get bent out of shape about, your side one and you should be glad and move on. just because it failed doesnt mean they had no right to bring the charges in the first place - re OJ.The topic at hand was actually campaign dirty tricks, which makes the entire discussion of Clinton off topic. Of course, your definition of changing the subject is anything that points to Republican problems while you are busy point the finger at Democrats.
You said that "bush never lied under oath, so he committed no felony". For the record, Clinton was never convicted of a felony either. He was found in contempt of court and fned. The civil suit against him was dismissed for lack of evidence of damages. The charges against him in the Senate were dismissed by a majority of the Senate, although only a one-third vote against conviction was needed to dismiss the charges. So where's the felony?
Last edited by david gibson; 09-27-2010 at 12:17 PM.
so there was never any such thing as mudslinging before attwater and karl rove did it? dirty politics is the republicans tactic, and the dems are merely mimicking them?
about what i expect from you....
Did you read the quote that you put up in bold lettering? Where does it say Bush lied. It clearly states that they didn't find the mass stock piles that THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY put out about the wmd's. Its not like Bush was the one coming up with the intelligence on it. That is not the presidents job that is why we have the CIA and others in the intel community. ALL OF WHOM SAID THERE WERE WMD's IN IRAQ...Quote:
Originally Posted by depittydawg
His successor committed the country to war by lying to the American people and to the world. He was also caught red handed lying about domestic spying on Americans. Neither of these were determined to be impeachable either. Go figure.
and the broken record speaks AGAIN
must be really boring in your head
Democrats have made the absence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a theme in their criticism of the Bush administration's decision to go to war in 2003. And President Bush himself has conceded much of the point; in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month, he said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."
Said Mr. Bush, "We did not find those weapons."
David this is from a source that you quoted, or did you not read your own article that you posted in another thread?
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-w...da-says/26514/
David, I guess you think cover ups are not against the law either? Just because Congress did not persue any impeachable offenses against Bush 43 doesn't mean he did not commit any impeachable offenses.
Take the Pat Tillman case for example. Evidence now shows he was murdered by someone in his squadron from as little as 10 feet away from him I believe it was listed as "friendly fire". What did Bush 43 do? claimed Executive Previledge ----- a cover-up.
As it did after the Haditha massacre, the U.S. military covered up the real cause of Pat Tillman's death. After claiming he died in a heroic gun battle with the enemy, the administration was later compelled to admit Tillman died from "friendly-fire." When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed "all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President" relating to Tillman's death, Bush refused, claiming executive privilege. Again, a showdown is looming, this time over documents.
Chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Committee Republican Tom Davis wrote a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, which said: "The Committee hearing [on Tillman's death] ... raised questions about whether the administration has been providing accurate information to Congress and the American people about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan."
There are many more examples of Bush 43 cover-ups also. Here is a link.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-w...da-says/26514/
What's with the bold type for crying out loud?
M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
Freeway JYD
Mike Whitworth
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote