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

[ModerateLeft]

It sure is.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? By John W. Dean, *former counsel to President Nixon*

[Australopithecus scobis]

watched carefully, and never saw him use the phrase "clear and present danger." If he had, he'd be impeachable. The administration knew they were selling a bill of goods, so they knew better than to use the second phrase.

[Bill Rogers]

Not half as much offensive as posting this useless crap in a woodworking newsgroup.

Bill.

[Australopithecus scobis]

Just turn on a filter. Searching for '^OT' works well. OTOH, think of it as BSing around the cracker barrel. If your newsreader supports scores, you can hide the OT posts without zapping them; then when you're in the mood for some persiflage, the OTs are still there for your enjoyment.

Anyway, it's Usenet.

[Leon]

I guess a little common sense would do wonders for your out look. But I guess your brain is set in Democrat mode.

[Greg Millen]

Not with this post - it didn't have OT in the subject.

Perhaps. But this is *our* cracker barrel, and who the heck is this one-time-wonder poster who introduces himself with a political thread in a WW group? Why is his nick "ModerateLeft" instead of "Splinter"?

This is political crap and is anything but persiflage (Light good-natured talk; banter.).

You say that like it's an excuse to be intrusive and rude.

Having said all that, I wouldn't have minded so much if the person was a regular, and was in fact just BS'ing. Fact is, someone wandered in, pissed his politics, and waddled out again. Probably a 1.5 on the troll scale.

cheers,

Greg

[Doug Miller]

If it is, then we had *another* reason to impeach Clinton, and also John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Madeleine Albright, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, Bob Graham, Tom Lantos, Sandy Berger, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, and many others, all of whom said _exactly_ the same things about Saddam and Iraq that GWB did.

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.

[David Hall]

Unfortunately, this thread is not marked as "OT" and doesn't include many of the most common words that those not wanting politics with their woodworking would normally filter on. I guess if your filter was left over from the Clinton years you might still have "impeac*" in your filter and I guess some might have "war" in the filter, but otherwise this thread wouldn't get caught by most filters. By the same token, the delete key still works.

Dave Hall

[Mike Reed]

I'd probably get the Porter Cable, mostly because I don't like yellow tools.

[Nobody]

I don't know, and I don;t care.

Is posting irrelevant political stuff on a woodworking group an PLONKable offense?

Most definitely!

PLONK!

[James T. Kirby]

Heh, if lying about sex is an impeachable offense (not!), then certainly a lie that has gotten many thousands of people killed certainly is.

Back to lurking :^)

JK

ModerateLeft wrote:

[Doug Miller]

Actually, it is.

Ann Coulter's book "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" gives a thorough exposition of the history of impeachment as a tool for removing corrupt public officials, and shows convincingly that it was intended from the beginning, and has historically been used, for just that purpose: removing officials whose immoral or unethical behavior demonstrates that they are unworthy of public office or trust.

In any event, Clinton was *not* impeached for "lying about sex". He was impeached for having committed the _felony_crime_ of lying while _under_oath_. The subject of the lie was not relevant to the bill of impeachment.

Fine -- then let's impeach all the Democrats that said _exactly_ the same things about Saddam and Iraq that GWB said. If he was lying, so were they. See for examples.

FWIW, the war has killed fewer people -- on both sides -- than typically died in Saddam's prisons and torture chambers in an equivalent period of time.

-- 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.

[Dave Hinz]

There's a difference between lying, and working on the best available intelligence. Even your boys Clinton and Kerry thought that the WMDs were there, remember? Even Kerry says he would also have gone in to Iraq.

At least Bush sticks to his argument, instead of waffling on both sides of the issue trying to play both sides.

[Larry Blanchard]

I'll go along with you there Dave, although I think Bush was more than willing to accept intelligence that the rest of the world thought was wrong, including the inspectors on the scene.

But the "lying" that got to me was his inability to say "9/11" or "terrorism" without saying "Iraq" or "Saddam" in close proximity.

No, he never said directly that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. In fact, at one time he said they were not. But he implied it with that proximity so many times that over half the American public (according to surveys) believed him.

Strictly speaking, not a lie. But I've seen tornadoes with less "spin" :-).

Once again, let me point out that I've voted for Republican presidential candidates about as often as Democrats. And Kerry is just one more lying politician whose only redeeming virtue is that he's not Bush.

It's Bush and his gang that scare me, not Republicans in general.

[Dave Hinz]

Well, when you say "the rest of the world thought was wrong", how does that reconcile with all of the UN resolutions that even the UN agreed he (hussein) was violating?

Seems to be a lot of Al Queda in that part of the world these days?

I didn't see him making that statement at the time, I saw him saying "SH says he's got a bunch of nasties, and the UN and I and our allies are inclined to believe him".

And strictly speaking, Clinton's perpetual lies about the Brady Law "stopping 300,000 felons" couldn't be interpreted as anything _but_ complete and utter lies. He counted any person who was initially denied a firearm purchase as a "felon who was stopped", when in reality nearly every one of them was someone with the same name, who was later allowed to buy the gun they were trying to buy. In all, exactly six people were prosecuted for trying to illegally buy a gun. Now, _that_ is spin.

I think Kerry is cut from the same cloth as Clinton was.

[Lew Hodgett]

Basically agree, but what really bothers me is Bush's brain, Carl Roe and the war hawks at the pentagon who seem to be running helter skelter with absolutely no oversite.

These people are real trouble and Bush seems unwilling or incapable of handling the situation.

[Mark & Juanita]

Realizing that there is no way to overcome the visceral hatred of Bush, but it seems that the idea of taking the war to the terrorists rather than waiting around and letting the ACLU prevent any types of police actions that might "profile" or "inconvenience" or "limit the rights of" potential terrorists while they plan their next attack on us seems like a pretty good idea and a practical course of action.

Also appears that Vlad Putin is signing up for this approach as well in light of recent events. Kind of some interesting irony, here in the US, we have rallys and protests objecting to and decrying the war. In Russia, they have rallys and protests demanding action to deal with the terrorists who targeted women and children.

[CW]

Doesn't matter. There is no declaration of war.

[Todd Fatheree]

Heck, Kerry couldn't be bothered to attend Senate Intelligence committee meetings 3/4 of the time while he was a member, so why would he bother with reading the Iraq info? In fact, he was so concerned with intelligence that you know how many of the four meetings he attended in the year following the first WTC attack? That's right...none. I guess he feels it's better to be able to play dumb in case things go wrong "duhhhh....I was only going with what the President told me".

todd

[Dave Hinz]

This isn't a moderated group, there are no "censors". If you posted something that didn't show up, it's a technical issue.

Your post did come thruogh both times.