Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

Page 6 of 13  


It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that Bush lied about anything. If you are talking about the war, then you have to say everyone in congress including Kerry (intelligence cmte, remember?) and lots of other people around the world were "lying."
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: :> :> More to the point voters might prefer a liar over an honest candidate :> based on the policies they espouse. I say might, because it may :> never come to pass that voters have a choice between an honest and :> a dishonest candidate. :>
: It is irresponsible to call someone a liar when there are absolutely NO : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that : Bush lied about anything.
His TANG service.
The nigerian yellowcake thing.
Links betwen Hussein and al-Quaeda ....
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony papers to show it. And then Rather, the Dems' lapdog, just puts it right on the air. Anyone who scoffed at the notion that the mainstream press (CBS in particular) is liberal can just shut up now, I guess.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:> : FACTS that substantiate that claim. Show me where it was concluded that :> : Bush lied about anything. :> :> His TANG service.
: Yeah, there's *so* much evidence that the Dems had to cook up some phony : papers to show it.
I'm of the opinion that if these docs were forged, they originated in Karl Rove's lair of deceit.
And aside from their originality, I'd like to see a detailed exmination of the *content* of the memos.
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Excuse me? They're *forgeries*.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Talk about obfuscation! If the source was in any way remotely connected to Rove, the White House or RNC, you don't think that CBS would have revealed that? Get real!

I must be missing something here. What logic is there to examining the content of a forged document. Find some authentic documents first, then ask for an examination/explanation of the content.
So if I forge a document that states that John Kerry self-inflicted three superficial wounds to get out of service in Vietnam, we should examine the content of the forged document? Right, I can just see it now.
--
Al Reid

How will I know when I get there...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

content of a forged document. Find some authentic documents

superficial wounds to get out of service in Vietnam, we

it now.

Bingo! Boy you nailed that one. Where was Dan on that case?
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that
Wow. You'll repeat any old dumbass statement that Terry McAuliffe blurts out, won't you. Look, genius, Bill Burkett has already admitted to being the source of the documents to CBS, though he says someone else was the original source. So, unless you're a complete idiot and think that Burkett is protecting Karl Rove, they obviously came from somewhere else.

Yes, let's have a detailed examination of documents that practically everyone believes are forgeries. Except Dan Rather. If the documents are forged, he wants to "break" that story. Here's your detailed examination. "Well, it appears that these documents were made up. *crumple* *crumple* Into the circular file for two points."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Translation: "Yeah, well, they're fake, but they're still true, waaaaah".

I'd like Kerry to answer why he didn't attend 77.6% of the intelligence committee meetings he was supposed to attend. How about things that matter? Bush's questionable service record, Kerry's post-war disgraces of the military - it's a wash. Pick another topic, you're not getting anywhere with this one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that
Andy, how about get off your Arss and go look for the info. It is all over the internet...not at all hard to find. Of course when you do find it you will probably attribute it to biased reporting.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:38:00 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss

I love this! Talking points from that bastion of fairness and even-handedness, Terry McCauliff. If Karl Rove is that clever and capable of pulling off such a sleight of hand exposition of the willingness of the media (CBS) to, with few questions, air forgeries in order to bring down a president, only to be shown to be partisan lapdogs of the Kerry campaign, then we have the wrong person running the war.

So, now we have gone beyond the 80's clarion call of "it's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges", we now have, "The memos may be forged, but we should concern ourselves with the contents of those FORGED (i.e, FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents and indict and investigate the president based upon the contents of these FORGED (i.e, FAKE, MADE-UP, FALSIFIED) documents. Wow. Complete melt-down on the left, we now have such visceral hatred of the president that we should not consider accusations in forged documents to be sufficient evidence for conviction.
Realizing of course, that the FORGER has committed a felony (falsifying federal documents).

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that should have been "now"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Before 9/11 I would have believed this, but since then I have learned that people are unable to get past their political biases and see the truth. It is an amazing thing.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says...

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, and I agree that to say the mainstream press doesn't have a liberal bent is rediculous (with the obvious exception of Fox.) Like I said earlier, political sympathies aside, it was sweet to see CBS/Rather take it in the shorts. Maybe we can look forward to Dateline cooking something up now if they're bored with sabatoging motor vehicles :-)
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
It
I think liberals and conservatives both benefit in the long run when the press is not slanted too much either way.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says...

I agree completely. Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Al Spohn" wrote in message

the
Personally, I don't give a damn whether a press/media organization is "slanted" just as long as they are upfront and don't try to hide it. For that very reason I can enjoy reading Molly Ivins and Bill O'Reilly on the same cup of coffee.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:27:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss

SH had WMDs in the '90s. He used them on his own people.
Every intel organization in the world believed that he did. Including Russia, France, and Germany. John Kerry believed that he did, "If you don't think SH's WMDs remain a threat, don't vote for me."
SH's actions with the UN weapons inspectors were to mislead and obfuscate, making it SEEM as if he had something to hide.
Moreover, every Iraqui military commander who's been debriefed has stated that, while THEY had no WMDs, "everyone knew" that "other units" had them, and expected them to be used against the Americans.
If he did not, in fact, still have them, then he surely is eligible for a Darwin Award--he gave everyone in the world reason to believe that he DID have them.
Chemical weapons shells have been used as IEDs by postwar terrorists. A 2-part serin shell (designed to mix chemicals in flight) was found in a roadside bomb. Because it was not used as designed, only a small amount of serin was released. IMO, a "small amount of serin" is much like "a benign brain tumor" in desirability.
Great Britain still contends that SH DID attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger (not Nigeria). Russia also so claims.
The 911 commission concluded that there were longstanding ties between SH and Al Quada. "Not operationally involved in the 9/11 attacks" has been seized upon as a synonym to "no connection" but even a cursory reading of the report makes the connection clear.
Now, I'm NOT a fan of our present Iraq policy. BUT I note that Kerry hasn't put up any proposal beyond "let France deal with it" . . who, BTW have emphatically said they WON'T be sending the troops Kerry expects from our "Traditional Allies."
But I suppose "Build nuke plants and tell the Saudis to drink their damn oil" makes me a dangerous reactionary or something.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Although it's a good first step, nuke plants alone won't do it. The most important step in ending our dependence on Middle East oil is to find an alternative to the internal combustion engine for powering our personal transportation. It's an inherently inefficient technology that makes poor use of the chemical energy in gasoline, wasting most of it as heat. Until that happens -- which will take a *long* time, given that there are a couple hundred million cars in the US -- we're stuck with buying oil from the buggers.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Partially . . . I suspect it's a combination of inertia plus the portability of gasoline. Fuel cells aren't "there" yet, and petroleum remains cheap and abundant--it would need to be something like 10x more expensive for its cost to affect things like ocean shipping.
My understanding is that the sticking point for vehicular use is cost per distance. It only becomes cost effective for things like satalites where there's no alternative but to be solar.
Though there are some encouraging developments: When was the last time you saw a diesel-powered temporary road sign? Around here they've been replaced 100% by solar powered LED models.
Still, if you remove all non-vehicle applications of petroleum, it would be significant in terms of supply and demand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.