Pres. Bush impeachable Presidential offenses

Censure motion introduced in House over Iraq, torture

John Conyers=political hack

Conyers is not a hack, he's one of the only Democrats with a spine and a voice. It is about time that someone in Congress actually took the President to task for this stuff. Censuring President Bush is the least we could do; I mean, our last president was censured for a few blowjobs from a chubby chick.

Silly me, I thought there was some perjury involved.

*sigh* Argument redux.

Yes, the lie was about a blowjob. There was (believe it or not) a vast right-wing conspiracy devoted to bringing down the presidency of Bill Clinton, and while they couldn't do it at the ballot box, they chased scandals for 8 years. Finally they found out something about him that had absolutely nothing to do with what they were investigating and set up a perjury trap for him because they knew he would cover it up, where he made a bad lapse in judgement, and yes, lied about a blowjob, for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.

His lie did not get any of our soldiers or Iraqi civilians killed. His lie did not endanger the safety and security of our undercover operatives. His lie was about a blowjob.

This post has been edited by Nate on Dec 21 2005, 05:46 AM

Did Hillary tell you that personally?

My recollection is that the lying started in the deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit, which Clinton later settled out of court, so the first lie was about money.

He lied about the blowjob later.

but did it kill thousands of US soliders? I am pretty fucking sure it didn't.


read Nate's post right above yours

No one died when Clinton lied

How about "No one cried when Clinton died!!!"

I did read Nate's post, in fact I was responding to it. I am not suggesting that Clinton's lies are on the same level as the lies that got us into Iraq. They are not.

They are also not little white lies he told to protect his family as some have suggested. In my opinion he lied to avoid civil liability and preserve his place in history.

The vast right wing conspiracy was invented by Hillary and is about as believable as her skills as a trader of cattle futures. Bush being wrong does not make Clinton right. If it makes you happy to say Bush was more wrong than Clinton, knock yourself out and enjoy your next trip through the kool aide line.

not only that, but the money that was spent on the "investigations" and independant council was greater than that spent on education in each of President Clinton's terms.

Negatory. Try looking up "Arkansas Project" or "Richard Mellon Scaife" on wikipedia.

"The Arkansas Project is the general name of a series of investigations (mostly funded by billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife) that were designed to damage and end the presidency of Bill Clinton... The "investigations" were a multi-front, loosely organized group of conservatives angry that Clinton won office and sought to damage his Presidency and remove him from office... The investigations were not limited to the now-discredited White Water "scandal," but also conspiracy theories. For example, Christopher Ruddy (a reporter for the Scaife owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) published a series of articles claiming Clinton was behind Vincent Foster's suicide."

I took your advice and checked Wikipedia and found that you are absolutely right except for the fact that it wasn't vast and it wasn't a conspiracy. See the last two sentences.


Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
"Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" is a phrase used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 during an interview on NBC's The Today Show to explain the perceived collaboration of her husband's political enemies. Clinton alleged that the scandals which had plagued her husband's presidency--specifically to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which had just surfaced, but also the Travelgate and Whitewater scandals--had been exposed for political gain.

Allegations that Bill Clinton had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky first made national headlines on January 21, 1998 when the story was picked up by the Washington Post. Despite swift denials from President Clinton, the clamor for answers grew louder. On January 27, 1998, Hillary Clinton appeared on The Today Show, in an interview with Matt Lauer:

Matt Lauer: "You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here."
Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this -- they have popped up in other settings. This is -- the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
The phrase has come to refer to the belief that a mix of conservative media outlets, activist groups, and political operatives worked together to shape public opinion and disseminate unsavory stories into the mainstream media.

Clinton allies allegedly identify billionaires Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch as key financiers of this 'conspiracy'. The First Lady's notion of a conspiracy was quickly denied by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the target of much of Hillary Clinton's criticism. It was also swiftly derided by many conservatives who found the idea of an actual conspiracy to be laughable. They claimed vindication when President Clinton ultimately admitted to having an "improper physical relationship" with Lewinsky.

David Brock, a conservative turned liberal pundit, has said that there was, in fact, an effort to dredge up scandals against Clinton, which he had been party to; this was documented in his book, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. He commented in an interview on The Daily Show that Hillary Clinton was essentially correct but wrong in the idea that it was "vast", saying it was actually a relatively small group. The term "conspiracy" is also hyperbole, as no commission of crimes against Clinton was ever proved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_...formation_study




Good thing Bush pardoned himself.

This post has been edited by jake on Jan 22 2008, 10:37 PM

I wasn't aware you could pardon yourself. The media doing a shitty job isn't exactly news either. No point beating up on Bush at this point. I don't think to many people will be rushing to his defense, You should remember that no one is totally useless, they can always serve as a horrible example.

Check the videos section of this site for the self pardon info.

You're right- no point beating up on Bush. After all, he's only responsible for 935 false statements that mislead us into a war that's killed 4000 of our soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians, thus fucking us back at home and making us less secure while our military is fighting an unwinnable war against an abstract ideology, and it's not like he's still in power, covering his tracks and looking for another war with Iran. I mean, he did fuck up that whole Hurricane Katrina thing, but those people were poor AND black, so fuck it. No point in beating up on the poor guy, he's had a rough 7 years- those fishing trips can be exhausting. Hey, at least he didn't get his dick sucked- that would be a disgrace to the office, THEN we'd have to look into what he was up to, and who needs that hassle? Why are we even talking about all of this boring political stuff while Britney's life is spinning out of control and Lindsay is back in rehab?!?!

Wow! You really have a hardon for GWB. My point was everyone knows he fucked up and he's a lame duck. I'm pretty sure he's pretty close to the top of the list of worst presidents of all time. But if it makes you feel better to get in a few more kicks before he leaves by all means knock yourself out.

I heard that the "935 false statements" quip was from a democratic funded organization so the number couldn't be trusted. The way I heard it was CBS got it from AP, AP got it from the democratically funded organization.

I just want this administration to publically apologize to Colin Powell for all the lies they had him portray to the American public and the world. I think they ruined a good man and his reputation.

I would be interested to see how many Democrats said that exact same thing? It's it is possible that Bush didn't lie, but he was just wrong...and that would only make him incorrect, not a liar.

Does that make it any better really?

Well its the difference of sending soldiers to fight for something he believed in, or something he knew was false. I think their is a big difference.

Here is the problem. There is so much that this administration has done that has either been an enormous fuck up, or unbelievably immoral, borderline illegal, etc. that it seems like the "liberal media" is just out to get Bush. But, in fact, all of this is really happening- are news organizations just supposed to not report on something because it happens to make the president look bad? That's un-American. Republicans tend to scream "liberal media" any time something negative comes out about them. They weren't, however, saying it a few years ago when there was non-stop coverage of Clinton's blowjob. I couldn't find a point by point breakdown of each statement they are claiming as false, but I doubt that they just randomly made up a number. Here's a link from their site to the "key" false statements.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Def...atements&id=946



I agree- he definitely got shit on. Powell seems like a really honorable guy who wanted nothing to do with the situation he was put in. While I don't agree with him just going along with it, I don't think many people can put themselves in the shoes of a career military man who was ordered directly by the commander in chief to do something he simply didn't agree with.

No, Hett, it's not. If you really want to revisit this, I could look up the threads from a couple years back where I was trolling your posts trying to get you to answer my questions on this, (which you ignored then, and I really don't expect you to answer now.) The fact is, there was PLENTY of evidence to the contrary regarding Iraqi WMD- it's come out in the past few years. The administration CHOSE to ignore the intelligence that didn't support war. They also conveniently forgot to tell US about those things either. Instead, they fired, smeared, or labeled as traitors, anyone who dared question a war with Iraq or question their motives. It was disgraceful then, and it's disgraceful now. I would be ashamed to have voted for him, not defending him. This is basic kindergarden rules- you're still lying just by omitting the truth (see Bill Clinton.) Put it this way, I don't know for a FACT that there's not WMD buried underneath my house, but I'm pretty sure there isn't. If you find one homeless guy to say that there [B]is[B] WMD under my house, that does NOT equal "no doubt" or "irrefutable evidence," as we were told on mulitiple occasions.

Use your head here, Hett. If you still believe we weren't intentionally mislead, based on the mountain of evidence and people who've come forward, then you are a total fool.


Wrong again, Hett. There's a difference, but it's a difference between being tried for war crimes or simply being a disgrace to the office of president who should leave in shame. You don't get an "oops" when it comes to war. When it means people's lives, YOU GET IT RIGHT. No second chances, no excuses. 4000 dead US soldiers even if they simply got it wrong, is inexcusable. The administration owed it to the troops to get it right, and at BEST, they failed catastrophically. Now where are we at? All those kids dead, and when we finally leave, Iraq is going to be just as big a shithole as when we found it. Do you honestly disagree??

Only the victors hold war crimes trials. If Germany had won WW 2 Nurenberg would be just another city, This isn't much differant than the way Kennedy and then Johnson sucked us into Vietnam. Does the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ring a bell? Maybe we're better off if the president is getting a blow job instead of fucking up his job. To my knowledge no one has ever started a war while having his knob polished, but I could be wrong.

I bought a truck, my dad said to get a 5 year loan, but I wanted a 4 year loan. I thought about the 5 year loan, but decided against it. Did I ignore my dads advice, or did I consider it, and decide against it?




And there has been plenty of evidence put forth that says Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD's

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/...in3749494.shtml

You're argument would be considerably stronger if Democrats had not been saying the same thing about Saddam and WMD's for over a decade. You know why Pelosi and Reid have never tried to impeach Bush, because they are on the record supporting Clinton's attempts to rid Iraq of WMD's.



I never said he shouldn't have to suffer for those loses if it was because he made a mistake. I have no doubt it will haunt him for the rest of his life.



Absolutely disagree. I guarantee Iraq will be a better place one day. Just because it didn't take 15 minutes and soldiers were killed, people will always label it a failure. But if we accomplish something meaningful there, it will have been worth it. 58k dean in Vietnam, 54k dead in Korea, and nothing to show for it, those are the failures.