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

Page 10 of 13  
(JMartin957) wrote:

That was the most amazing thing I've ever seen, and sums Clinton up in 2 seconds. He was actually walking with the pastor I believe when that happened.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, and who makes the determination that someone has "joined the enemy?" How is it that they don't have the right to even contest that? Because to do so might make then eligible for due process, which would be *really* inconvenient in terms of getting another notch on Ashcroft's belt.

I agree that Kerry's opinion in this regard is totally brain-dead. However it's also pretty run-of-the-mill and pretty broadly held (granted, doesn't say much for the average IQ.) And since when have you ever heard of a presidential candidate that wasn't a "slicky-boy politician who can't tell the truth about anything." PLEASE don't say that GW doesn't fit that description to a "T" as well.

I see, but it doesn't bother you that Bush had taken 250 days off as of August 2003 (27% of his presidency spent on vacation) - compared to the average American having 13 days off a year? And if you want to bring Clinton into the mix, he took off a total of 152 days in the entirety of his first two terms. The only close runner up to GW in days off is his father, who took off 543 vacation days (speaking of being "cut from the same cloth"). Please spare me the "working vacation" stuff - that's easily on par with Clinton's "didn't inhale."
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I'd say turning up in, say, Afghanistan, training with the Taliban, would be one good sign that you've decided to join the enemy. Yes?

So you tolerate his lies since all politicians lie? OK, perhaps, but if it's a given they're all untrustworthy, then at least decide which issues matter most to you, and pick the one whose _actions_ agree with your beliefs.

"Not in the White House" does not equal "Not working". Kerry missing say 75% of meetings he's supposed to be at, _does_ equal "not working".

Shame he wasn't gone more, actually.

OK, if you want to believe it, there's obviously no way I'll change that. But even if you dislike W, wouldn't him not being at work be _good_ for you then?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

This might hold water if everyone having their civil rights suspended was found to be training with the Taliban, but that's far from the case.

Yes.

I agree completely. And although Kerry's opinion on the weapons stuff is idiotic, it's not something that I'm passionate about. But I have no problem with it shaping your voting decision.

I don't follow this logic. 2/3's of the meetings I am supposed to be at are a total waste of time. In fact, I'm serving my users/benefactors more by getting something 'real' done instead of sitting through the meeting. I don't know for a fact that this is the case with Kerry, but it certainly illustrates that not being at meetings does not necessarily mean not working. Why should I take for granted that Bush is working while not in the White House (translation, in Crawford or Kennebunkport) but that Kerry isn't while absent from meetings?

:-)

Sure you can, I'm all ears. But I would expect you to be open to the possibility that Kerry might be doing something worthwhile when not attending meetings in Washington.

It doesn't bother me for that very reason. I just thought it odd that you were bothered by Kerry's frequent absences but not by Bush's notorious vacation times.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hold your nose and pull the lever, yup.

It's not just his view on them, it's how he completly misrepresents what the issue is about. If it was "I agree with the AWB because I'm anti-gun (he is)", fine, I disagree with him. But when he says "Lifting the AWB is bad because it helps terrorists", and when he equates the ban to anything involving machine guns (it doesn't), it just turns my stomach. How badly is he lying to us on topics I don't understand as completely? I don't know, but I'm not planning to find out.

According to http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID $1 , Kerry missed 77.6% of the meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee while he was a member, from 1993 to January 2001. If 77.6% of the meetings of that committee are a total waste of time, I would think that someone who was on it for 8 years would have some pull in fixing that...if he cared to bother... Note that I don't know the slant if any of factcheck.org, so I don't know if it needs to be checked.

Well, it certainly _sounds_ like something that should be important, and apparently it wasn't important enough for him to attend, _or_ important enough to him for him to stay in. Now, for election time, he says it's really important, conveniently enough.

Well, if he wasn't at the meetings, he shouldn't be claiming he cared about topic. His actions speak pretty loudly on this one.

Could be, but as I say, then he should explain why he missed 77.6% of them. "They were BS meetings"? Great, then why are they having meetings that don't mean anything? "I lost interest and didn't feel it was important, until it became politically necessary to pretend otherwise" is what I'm seeing. If you're not going to participate fully in a group, don't participate at all, and make room for someone else.

I'm not _bothered by_ them, but I would like him to explain himself.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Has it ever been any other way? We're talking politics here.

Yeah, the moveon rhetoric that he seems to perpetuate with regard to the ban is pretty pathetic. But I think where we differ is that you believe it is particularly low even for a politician, and I would maintain that such a misrepresentation is "business as usual" for every political figure on the national scene. You're just sensitized to it because you're knowledgeable about the issue, and as such, aren't gullible enough to blur the distinction between bayonet mounts and hip mounted miniguns like so much of the public evidently is. But it's par for the course. For example, your reaction to Kerry's take on this issue is really not much different than what somebody in the know on weapons technology (e.g., scientists and analysts Los Alamos, Albequerque, Omaha...) thinks when they hear Rumsfeld and other senior staff members talk about capabilities of future/proposed weapon systems.

Interesting site. Looks like it's associated with the Annenberg School of Public Policy at Penn, so I'm assuming they're at least attempting to be unbiased. Again, I'm not arguing that he wasn't absent.

Is there anyone in the race who hasn't acquired a sudden interest in a topic that also happens to be germane to their electability?

Not terribly shrewd, politically, I'll admit. I think it's a clumsy reaction on his part to the prevailing, current administration manufactured opinion that the future of western civilization depends on fixing the intelligence community. This might not earn him any merit badges, but it's small fry in the grand scheme of political indiscretions.

I don't know... is Kerry to blame for that?

I'd be curious as to what the normal rate of absenteeism is in Washington, particularly for those running for the Presidency. His behavior in this regard only marks him as a politician in my book, and doesn't rule him out as a viable candidate for the presidency.

As would I, but I hope you'll hold Bush to the same standard regarding his vacation time.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see you're setting the bar pretty high there for electing our next president...leader of the free world. With that attitude it is no wonder we are getting what we deserve in politicians.

You keep saying it is vacation, but to anyone with an objective viewpoint, it is not. Why do you keep calling it vacation? It just isn't.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan White wrote:

FWIW, I used to work for a company whose CEO spent half his time skiing in Europe. And every time he came back he came back with millions of dollars worth of new business. He died. The company died shortly after. So was he working or vacationing? Or does it make a difference?

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants investigation before condemning him.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

While what you say may have merit regarding useless meetings, more telling is attendance to cast votes during normal Senate business. One cannot argue that attendance at Senate votes is bureaucracy or "useless" meetings -- it is what these Senators were hired to do. Both before and following their announcements of candidacy, both Kerry and Edwards had absentee rates far higher than most of their peers. As a matter of fact, Kerry's absentee record following his announcement actually improved after he announced. Before he announced, his absentee record was 57% (yep, he missed more votes than he cast).
<http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001349.php <http://www.rapp.org/archives/2004/03/vote_dammit/ Just a couple linksfound in a google search for "kerry senate voting attendance"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hadenough.com says... [...]

Yes, the voting record is a horse of a different color. Definitely a potent negative in the Kerry column, I won't deny that. Not enough to tip the balance in terms of adding up all the other positives and negatives in my book, but possibly a determining factor for folks that are otherwise on the fence, I would imagine.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Inquiring minds want to know... Could you list a few of Kerry's positives?
I know I am confused. Over the last year or so, he has taken so many positions on issues that I have no idea where he stands. Take Iraq for example. He has taken so many positions that he has now said something at some point that everyone can agree on, however, not at any one point in time, AND that anything he says in the future will certainly conflict and contradict something he has said in the past.
Frankly, he makes my head spin. How can anyone really know what position he will take on any issue if he should get elected?
--
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
snipped-for-privacy@nospamhotmail.com says...

Here are his top two positives:
1. He's not GWB 2. He's not GWB
Beyond that, "good enough," albeit vague, wishy-washy or nearly anything else is all I ask for. For me the crucial issue is that GWB has burned his bridges with the world community. Very few of the mistakes, well meaning or not, that he (often with the support of congress) made are undoable. And no, being in better sync with the world community is not necessarily tantamount to bending over for every U.N. initiative that comes along. I believe Kerry, if nothing else, is capable of finding a happy medium with regard to diplomacy. Not necessarily as the result of any special skill set, but simply because he isn't GWB, I.e., he hasn't used up all his favors. He is in a position, with regard to the world community, of starting off with a clean slate. For me, that's huge. I figure he's been around Washington enough to keep from doing much damage otherwise. One other requirement is that whomever we elect will maintain an intelligent anti-terror momentum. With international cooperation, the type only possible with someone other than Bush, I think that's possible. And I think Kerry will be forced to pony up in that regard in the event he starts to falter.
Having said that, I think Bush gets a little worse than he deserves from the world community, and Kerry definitely better than he deserves (only because he's the Bush alternative.) But we don't have the option of telling the world community to screw off - we can only take advantage of the opportunity to start over.
Sorry for blathering on for so long, but my only alternative is to be productive at work :-).
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>> >

Same answer I always get. Anybody but Bush!
<snip>>

--
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
says...

Al, you seem like a nice guy, but what the hell are you talking about!!!! :) Who says he has used up his favors and has burned bridges??? This is really quite silly. The leader of the US never burns bridges because we are too important for the world economy. I would dare say it is near impossible for the president of the US to do anything that would cause any European country to boycott the US. Do you know that France just came out and flat out said that they will not change their position even if Kerry is elected?
We should care that France and Germany didn't want us to attack Iraq because they were getting some kind of illegal kickbacks from Saddam? I, for one, am glad as hell that we have a president who does what is best for us, not what is best for France and Germany. Let's see the Eiffel tower fall and then you'll see what side France comes down on.
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, bottom line, no BS. You have a guy tooting his horn on how he is a member of the security council and that is a real feather in his cap at this point in time. Then you find out he missed most of the meetings, staff or no staff, he missed them. Doesn't this mean anything? How can an observer not think this is a negative?
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@optonline.net says...

Woops, that rules me out right off the bat :-)

I'll grant you that it comes off as negative. For me it merely reinforces the fact that he is a windbag, which is to say, a politician. It's just that I get the impression that when something looks overtly negative on it's face when it comes to Bush, his supporters are always willing to delve into details and examine circumstances (e.g., NG service... "Woops, I guess where did those dang records go?") but with Kerry (e.g., missed meetings) a simple "gimme a break" is all the consideration that is warranted. I know that goes both ways - I'm probably just sensitized to the Kerry treatment because I (grudgingly) come down on his side by a fairly narrow margin.
- Al
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm

OK, well then I'll call off the attack dogs I had scheduled for you in the morning.
(but you're still voting for the wrong guy. Who do you think the terrorists in Iraq want to win the election?) ;)
dwhite
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Screw them. I care less about their preference than I do about yours.
But if you want to think about that, who was the candidate who benefitted the most from the bombing of the Cole?
--

FF

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

Well, I could always loosen my standards a little if you really insist on electing Bush :-). If you think that anybody that bubbles to the top in Washington does so in the absence of dirty tricks, pandering to corporate interests (democrat and republican,) and otherwise doing whatever it takes to put themselves in a position to "make a difference," you're either terribly naive or are enjoying some form of chemically induced optimism (back away from the table saw :-))

How is it that when Kerry misses a meeting, or lots of meetings, the only possibility is that he's off screwing around wasting tax payers money (mind you, I'm not saying he isn't - I'm just saying the issue is never open to question.) But when Bush is in Crawford or Kennebunkport 27% of the time, he's obviously hard at work?
From an *objective* standpoint, can you tell me why he needs to be in Crawford or Kennebunkport to do his job if it's not to be in a more vacation-like atmosphere? Better satellite coverage in Crawford, maybe? Or perhaps the decision enhancing nutrients inherent in Kennebunkport lobsters?
My suspicion is that Kerry is screwing off some of the time and getting more important work done some of the time when he's supposed to be in meetings. And yes, Bush is probably getting a fair amount of work done between beers in Crawford and Kennebunkport. I just find it ironic for Bush supporters to point at Kerry's attendance record when Bush is setting records for his time away from Washington in places generally acknowledged to be more relaxation retreats than places associated with conducting presidential business.
- Al
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.