The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Oops.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Who did that? didn't they have an investigation and struck out?

Fitzgerald announced that his investigation is continuing before a new Grand Jury. Apparently Mr. Woodward's testimony gave him food for thought.

Turdblossom is not yet in the clear, and we may yet find the truth before that good Republican, OJ Simpson, finds Nicole's real killer.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course Clinton lied under oath.

As for whether Bush lied, why don't we just say that we don't know enough about his state of mind yet. (You didn't read the Schmitt thing, did you?)

Suppose someone said that there was "no doubt" that there were WMD in Iraq, or that "we know where the WMD are." Given that the intelligence was ambiguous, and that we did not in fact know where the WMD were, would not those be lies?

You know how you keep saying stuff is a fact or proven, then when pressed you link a blog?

Should we dismiss you as a liar lacking credibility?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Should we disniss you as a liar lacking credibility?

Hmm. If I say "yes," then I win, right? And yet I think there's a trick somewhere . . . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Fitzgerald announced that his investigation is continuing before a new Grand Jury. Apparently Mr. Woodward's testimony gave him food for thought.

Turdblossom is not yet in the clear, and we may yet find the truth before that good Republican, OJ Simpson, finds Nicole's real killer.

S_A_M

Pincus is going down.

(As you read this, keep in mind that this is the PB, not the FB.)

[bilmore]

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
If a sitting Republican president had a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him and he had a deposition where he lied under oath about sex in the oval office he would be gone.

The Democrats would scream bloody hell because they would assume the sexual harassment claim was true (like they did with Clarence Thomas) and would claim that he had taken advantage of a young intern. It would drive the womens movement into a frenzy.

The Republicans would never defend a man who cheated on his wife and got a blow job in the oval office (look at Livingston, Gingrish and Tower).

No Republican president would have ever survived what Clinton did.

What you said was if a Republican lied under oath, his party would force him to resign. They lied under oath.

You can backpedal all you want, but your post speaks for itself and it was bullshit.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Who did that? didn't they have an investigation and struck out?

Like Clinotn was acquited, right? Right Hank?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Like Clinotn was acquited, right? Right Hank?

Do you really believed he lied? I don't think you or any of the pols really believe that. And that is what is so infuriating about this whole thing. It is completely undermining our efforts in Iraq and around the world.

I have no problem with an honest policy debate - i.e., should we stay or should we go and if so, when. But the Dems and some GOPs are conflating the question of whether we should have gone in the first place with should we be there now. They are clearly two different questions and the ramifications of not distinguishing between the two, IMO, will be ugly.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What bizarre about all the earmarks is that it's the same way for all of them. They divvy up a pot, and different congressmen specify projects. The state would get the money either way. For some reason, they feel this is more effective than having it go into general transportation funds, which the state government could spend as it sees fit. I suppose the reason is that it's a lot more impressive to cut a ribbon on a big bridge than to point out how smoothly the Town Car rolls down the freshly paved highway.

This may not be an issue in Alaska, but congressmen, as opposed to senators, do care just where in the state the funds are spent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What you said was if a Republican lied under oath, his party would force him to resign. They lied under oath.

You can backpedal all you want, but your post speaks for itself and it was bullshit.

This is what I said:

If a Republican had lied under oath, especially in the way Clinton did the Republicans would have forced him to resign. Just the same way Livingston was forced to resign. If Bush I had done what Clinton did he would have had no Republican support.

I can't believe you made me look that up. And yes if a Republican president lied under oath on tape in front of a federal judge he or she would be toast.

In addition, if a Republican president got caught having an affair in office and lied about they would also probably be toast.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you really believed he lied? I don't think you or any of the pols really believe that. And that is what is so infuriating about this whole thing. It is completely undermining our efforts in Iraq and around the world.

I have no problem with an honest policy debate - i.e., should we stay or should we go and if so, when. But the Dems and some GOPs are conflating the question of whether we should have gone in the first place with should we be there now. They are clearly two different questions and the ramifications of not distinguishing between the two, IMO, will be ugly.

I believe that Cheney decided to attack Iraq and Bush followed his lead. I think that they took some incredible liberties with the intelligence data. Whether they engaged in deliberate misrepresentation or read the gaps in the data in a way that served their desired outcome, I don't know.

I know for a fact that the Administration presented the sketchy knowledge they had to the public as being far more definitive and certain than it was. Is that dishonest? Yes, clearly. Is it lying? Minds could differ.

However, my comment was directed to Hank, who suggested that the fact that Fitzgerald didn't indict Scooter and Turd Blossom for knowingly outing a covert CIA operative means that they did nothing wrong. Implied in Hank's post was the dismissaal of their lying to a grand jury as unimportant, or just a technicality.

My reply just pointed out a parallel with Bill Clinton. He wasn't charged with any real crime, other than lying under oath. And the Senate acquitted him of that charge.

All that aside for the moment, what really offends me is the notion that a criticism of the Bush Administration is somehow unpatriotic, and that the exercise of my First Amendment rights is undermining America.

I submit that Cheney, Bush, and Karl Rove, in adopting an "our President, right or wrong" attitude are what undermines American effectiveness and credibility. The existence of secret prisons undermines our global effectiveness and credibility.

And what's more, in the present circumstances, the Republican majority in the House, with their one-sentence resolution, is trying to destroy the ability of the House to honestly debate whether or not we should remain in Iraq, as proposed by Rep. Murtha. That's what is undermining Congress's credibility at home and undermining our ability to determine the proper course of action.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Do you really believed he lied? I don't think you or any of the pols really believe that. And that is what is so infuriating about this whole thing. It is completely undermining our efforts in Iraq and around the world.

As Mark Schmitt said in the thing I linked to, asking the question about whether he lied misses the larger point. They made up their mind about what to do, and then cherry-picked facts and evidence to support it. If they lied, it was because they went too far in selling what was a shaky case. But the more fundamental problem was not the misrepresentation -- it's that these clowns settled on an Iraq policy, and a war, without caring about the actual facts. Yielding the mess we have now.

I have no problem with an honest policy debate - i.e., should we stay or should we go and if so, when. But the Dems and some GOPs are conflating the question of whether we should have gone in the first place with should we be there now. They are clearly two different questions and the ramifications of not distinguishing between the two, IMO, will be ugly.

I agree completely. I obviously think it was a mistake to go in, but now that we are there, we need to figure out how best to handle the situation, and I am not convinced -- yet -- that this means withdrawal. OTOH, it's clear that the presence of our troops is aggravating some problems, and the Iraqis may not get as serious about solving their security problems as long as we are there to keep shooting at the insurgents. (The same people who love to talk about the disincentives created by welfare seem to have a very hard time understanding this.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OTOH, it's clear that the presence of our troops is aggravating some problems, and the Iraqis may not get as serious about solving their security problems as long as we are there to keep shooting at the insurgents. (The same people who love to talk about the disincentives created by welfare seem to have a very hard time understanding this.)

i'm just quoting this to preserve it. I think once you sober up, you'll realize it is hateful to several groups of people, and probably the dumbest thing you've posted to boot.

I know if I didn't quote it, you'd have edited it out once you come down.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As Mark Schmitt said in the thing I linked to, asking the question about whether he lied misses the larger point.

There is no doubt whether he lied misses any relevent point at all. It is just something Dems like to focus on to so they can complain when it is completely irrelevent. What makes it even more pathetic is that it is not even true that he did lie.

Whatever was done before the war does not change the fact of where we are. It is a sunk cost and only morons and irresponsible people focus on why we got in the first place. The point is we are there and what is the next step. That is the discussion for adults. To focus on this other stuff does no one any good.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
we need to figure out how best to handle the situation, and I am not convinced -- yet -- that this means withdrawal.

We do not need to figure anything out. For better or for worse the Bush administration is in charge. The only thing the loyal? opposition needs to worry about is are there actions helping or making the situation worse.

At this point I don't hear much of anything come out of any Democrats mouth in Washington that is helping the situation.