To facilitate that, could you please make with the linky-linky?
You bet I did. I was disgusted to the extreme. You couldn’t turn on the TV without hearing about Clinton’s escapades. It was a mockery On the entire country that I felt ashamed of. And it pissed me off. And I believe it was all the Republican’s fault. My vocal opinion (at the time) was that the most powerful man in the world can get a friggin BJ if he wants, and it is none of our business. It’s between him and his wife. And of course you will deny something so silly as that. But he lied under oath about it. That is inexcusable and impeachable. Because the president, incompetent or not, is not above the law.
brian, where exactly am I “making stuff up”? Is it your contention that, technically, the President makes no oath to veracity, and therefore is not legally bound to such a standard? Frankly, I would consider such an argument an excercise in legal sophistry. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that a President who lies in pursuit of a policy of war can reasonably be said to be executing the duties of his office.
Dewey, the sheer number of lies told stuns my typing capacity. I would prefer not. Further, I very much doubt that you are innocently unaware of the facts, even the WSJ does a bit of actual reporting, here and there. Tell you what: you show me a notarized document proving that you have been residing in a cave on Mars this previous annum, and I will extend myself generously in your education.
Saen:
That’s cool.
Peace.
Sounds like you could author a good fiction book with the OP.
Wow, was that unwarranted. All I asked for was a link or two so I’d know what exactly in the hell you’re talking about.
Yes, yes, I get it – you think Bush is eeeeeeeevvvilllllllll and a liar to boot. But seeing how I prefer to think for myself, I’d like to evaluate for myself whether a given statement is a lie or not. I mean, really – if you aren’t willing to state the basis for your claim, how on earth can we verify it?
You’re right that I’m probably “aware of the facts” – I think I’m reasonably well-informed – but I can’t debate a generality (“Bush is an evil idiot liar”). If that’s all you’ve got, you need to stay in IMHO. Give us something concrete to discuss, for crying out loud.
So you want to debate, but prefer not burden your point with support? Christ, I agree that Bush is lying to support his personal war, but this is goddam ridiculous. Don’t start a debate unless you are willing to support it.
Elucidator: Present your evidence here so that it can be debated. I have no indication of what your opinions are based on, and if you’re going to present such a claim you should supply a link. I don’t live at your house, and I didn’t catch the headline on your coffee table yesterday.
How can anyone challenge the illustrious Looserdata when he has dozens of Democrats lining up to impeach the president? Why, the resolution is being run thru congress as we speak. I’d provide the link for that, but since everyone knows what I’m talking about is ture, I don’t see the need.
ture = true. I’m a dyslexic typer.
C’mon, elucidator. You better come up with the goods or this is gonna turn into a serious trainwreck, kinda like this thread.
The amazing thing is that all you had to do was give a link to something that anyone can get if they wanted to…or is it another of your left-wing biased sources that people can call bullshit on without even sweating?
Something tells me it is.
It is “sophistry” when you shift topics and arguments in order to evade a point that you can’t support, as you just did. But let’s evaluate the actual point that I was making: you wrote
You falsely implied that the presidential oath imposes some conditions or standards on when or how the Government can “proceed to war.” It does not. The oath is silent on that subject. If your point is (as I gather) that a President should tell the truth, then just say so, and make your argument on that basis. Don’t project your personal politics into the oath and pretend that it says whatever you want it to.
My point did not involve whether “a President who lies in pursuit of a policy of war can reasonably be said to be executing the duties of his office.” But let’s examine your contention anyway. The President takes an oath that he (or she) “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.” Can you identify a constitutional provision or a law that President Bush is violating? If so, then please cite it, and make your argument on that basis. But your argument so far is essentially that impeachable misconduct consists of pursuing a policy that you, elucidator, disagree with, or whose factual basis you dispute. Not a very potent argument.
(sigh) I feel rather as if I had said GeeDubya was previously Governor of Texas, and am assailed by demands for proof. “Got a cite for that? Well, if you’re going to sling wild accusations without evidence…”
Well, whats your preference?
There is the most recent debacle, as to the Keystone Kops like forgery regarding the allegation that Iraq was feverishly attempting to purchase uranium in Africa. Which balderdash was cited in this State of the Union Adress. Offered as proof of the Saddamites imminent nuc-yu-lar threat. Googled that, got 10 pages, picked this one more or less at random:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080166/
The Dreaded Aluminum Tubes, alluded to in the same speech for the same end. Again, another ten pages. (Do you guys get Google on AOL?) Picked that radical left rag, the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35360-2003Jan23¬Found=true
My personal all time favorite is when Bush stood with Blair and brandished the IAEA report which stated unequivocally that Goddam Hussein was only a hairs breadth from building Da Bomb. Never existed. You knew that, right? Read about it, had some inkling? No? Well, then, here. Its the Washington Times, but what the heck, you can find others, pretty much saying the same thing.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm
Now this next one is more a bit of judicious editing, rather than bald faced lie. Its the defector who presented testimony the Bushistas found delectable. He also delivered testimony that they found distasteful, and it found its way to the memory hole, poof!, gone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18467-2003Feb28.html
Will this do for now? Its almost 60 degrees here in MN, and when Spring falls on a Sunday, we like to rush about heedlessly.
Thank you.
Ya got me, AD. Just the New York Times, Washington Post, the usual collection of Pravda like purveyors of leftist bullshit. Regretably, Ms. Coulter and the aptly yclept Mike Savage are oddly quiet on these issues, and I am forced to refer to these scurrilous rags. Alas! I am bereft.
And its is quite true, as Brian hastens to point out, that the Oath of Office is silent on the issue of truthfulness. Presumably, he takes that to mean that any mendacity that suits his discretion is therefore “legal”. I suppose that may be true, for whatever tattered rag of comfort might be found there.
But such as this is precisely what I mean by “sophistry”: it is technicality the evades the spirit of the thing. If no demand for veracity and honor is implied by the oath, why administer an oath at all, if one is free to take the oath mendaciously?
I accept GeeDubyas utterly dumfounding defense of tax cuts in a situation bordering on fiscal chaos as equal mendacity, it isn’t so, and he has every reason to know it isn’t so. But that’s politics, kissing the butt of babies and rich and powerful grownups is part of the harlots trade, no virgin is ever elected Queen of the Whores.
Perhaps it is naive of me to expect a higher level of truth when it comes to war, when the issue at hand is sending our children in harms way. Come to think of it, it probably is naive of me to expect that, given the record we have at hand.
But it is coldly realistic of me to demand nothing less. And I do, sir, demand nothing less.
Elucidator: None of the articles you’ve presented show any evidence of Pres. Bush lying about anything. Your circular logic is fueled by the idea that Bush used information that he knew to be false in order to persuade a body of people to go to war. But, the falsehood was discovered, and now his ass is in the pan.
Fmr Pres. Clinton knew, for a fact, verified by his own eyes or at least the sensory apparatus in place, that someone was bobbing on his knob in the oval office, and then lied to a grand jury. Was it blown out of proportion? Sure.
What you’re suggesting is that we impeach a president based on a lie that is your opinion based on the articles you’ve presented. No one in those articles said anything about the president lying. The discussion of potential war is frought with far more pitfalls then Clinton’s where to stick the cigar game, and information is flying all over the place from every country in the world. Some of it was bad. I think a call for impeachment at this point would be premature.
If george was subjected to the intense investigation (80,000,000 +) that Clinton was subjected too I think that the lies would be obvious. Enron, energy task force, intelligence and briefings by the former administration prior to 9/11 and so on. Just to cite an example, here is a link to some interesting stuff about this administrations attempt to block the 9/11 investigation. Why? Maybe they do have something to hide? Just my .02
http://www.bushoccupation.com/welcolumn.html
Under different circumstances, I would be inclined to agree as to “prematurity”. I would recline content that, barring the unlikey nomination of Joe Lieberman or Carrot Top for Democratic contender, his ass is grass and time is the lawnmower.
But he has almost two more years to “serve”. Further, if an impeachment attempt shall fail, as is likely, I grant you, it will at least cramp his loose-cannon style, and such is urgently needed. At the very least, it may lend spine to the recumbant Dumbocrats who so cravenly surrendered thier authority to make war.
Keep in mind: one can be, as recently demonstrated, impeached but not convicted. I shelter my argument in that bit of legal sophistry, as shamelessly as is my wont. True enough, a conviction is as unlikely as a sudden outbreak of truth and justice, yet, one soldiers on.
And don’t forget it offers another opportunity for Justice Rehnquist to sport his self-designed Chief Jurist robes, with those simply cunning gold stripes! To die for!
elucidator, in the OP, you made a specific false statement about the oath, which I have now challenged twice without even the courtesy of a response from you that actually addresses my point. Your only response is to put words in my mouth and then knock down your own straw man. Please don’t speak for me or recharacterize my argument.
It is ironic that you prate about “demand for veracity and honor” while you steadfastly fail to exhibit those qualities yourself.
To indulge a point: if Bush was not lying, merely unaware that the allegations he was spouting as justification for war were unfounded, would that not fall under the definition of incompetence? Perhaps an even stronger case could be made if one were to believe that he was not lying, merely too lazy and pig-headed to question “intelligence” that concurs with his preconceptions. I suggest then, esteemed Copa that you might take care not to defend his honesty by attacking his intelligence.