If you prefer not to hear the swearing, it's a collection of news clips where Bush, Cheney, Rice, and others blatantly and obviously contradict themselves over and over about the entire Iraq process.
Regardless about how you feel about the war, no matter which party you belong to, no matter how you feel about the administration, no matter the fact that we are entrenched, I do not understand how the American people and our elected representatives can allow this blatant and documented lying to go unquestioned and unaddressed.
How is this not a an impeachable offense? Why isn't there more of an uproar about it? Even if you 100% support Bush and the war, how can you stomach the lies?
---- I'm sure this thread has a good chance of degrading into a political debate, although I sincerely hope people will actually address the topic fairly. If anyone has specific political or legal insight as to the process, I would love to hear it.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: although I sincerely hope people will actually address the topic fairly.
When you start it off the way you did, I find it highly unlikely.
As I told Bob Scopatz some time ago, when you start off going to a group of people and say "why haven't you impeached your guy yet?" you aren't likely to get any takers of a reasonable variety.
I think I may have made some similar posts WRT Clinton about 1998 or so, so I don't mean to sound high and mighty about it. Just lessons learned over time.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what you're saying Jim-Me, but I don't know how to ask the question any way that doesn't point out the obvious fact of the lies.
I supported Clinton, but I still think it was right and legal to formally question his behavior in regards to lying.
Of course, I know that a lot of people are very polarized and that it's difficult not to react with a knee-jerk when confronted with something you don't want to hear.
I always hope people will make an effort to see things from another perspective, and maybe look at facts objectively instead of dragging out the old laundry and turning it into an Us vs. Them.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Not really. Dubya ain't gonna get impeached. And talkin' as if it were plausible is about as useful as trying to "find the truth behind the JFK assassination": Distracts attention from what's happening right now, right in plain sight of the public. And provides the tag of 'conspiracy nut' to anyone who points out what's happening right now, right in plain sight of the public.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's a collection of news clips where Bush, Cheney, Rice, and others blatantly and obviously contradict themselves over and over
They're politicians, for one thing, and for another thing it isn't that hard to get contradictions out of, say, the Bible.
Is it unfair to point out that if Clinton had done his job right, Osama wouldn't have ever gotten to hit New York? I mean, I understand that "Your guys a liar and fat too" is below the belt. But if his terrorism response is relevant, is it not, just as Bush's statements from his first administration are still relevant?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure you realize that doesn't make it any less wrong.
"and for another thing it isn't that hard to get contradictions out of, say, the Bible."
Probably not a convincing argument for someone who feels these contradictions are quite crippling for said Bible.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: They're politicians, for one thing, and for another thing it isn't that hard to get contradictions out of, say, the Bible.
This is very true, Pooka, but it hasn't stopped many people on both sides of the aisle from using the same tactics. Limbaugh pretty much pioneered it. Carville practically perfected it in pillorying Bush Prime for actually daring to cooperate with the Democrats.
I don't know much about what the state of debate was like before that time, but I sure as hell think that it makes absolutely no sense for the parties to cooperate now, as they have clearly shown they will hang each other for compromising and freely co-opt each other's ideas.
example: the per child tax credit that was such a centerpiece of Bush's economic plan was originally proposed by Lloyd Bensten while Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton. It was defeated by the then republican controlled congress.
In so many ways, Chesterton was right on the money when he said "it's terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do find it a tragedy that so many politicians, from all parties, feel that it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to take a stand on issues, and further to blatantly contradict themselves and outright lie whenever it suits their purposes. It's a sad state of the Union, I would say, when we all let it slide so often.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So theft of the per child tax credit is what really galls you about Republicans? That's amazing.
So just out of curiosity, were any of you LD debaters in high school, or college if your college had that? I wasn't, and when someone described it to me later, I was frankly sickened.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's one example. And a very clear one. I'm also one of the more conservative posters on the board, so I'm not sure why you think I have a particular gall for Republicans.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to say for one that politicians and leaders have lied ever since they began addressing anything close to a "congegration" of people. Its not really illegal for them to not tell you the truth, at least if they're not sworn into court etc. I mean could you imagine government if they didn't lie, and don't be naive here. The thing is when it comes to our world today its nothing but spin. Ninenty-nine percent of the population doesn't really understand what they're reading half the time anyhow. The Sports section of the newspaper has the highest level of written English on average in the newspaper.
That and for another one to address the topic of "murdering" U.S. soldiers. Well for one I haven't seen him shoot any yet, but I've sure run into quite a few radical Islamics that have. Not to mention frequent failed attempts. Sendings soldiers to war is not killing them, its called having them do their job. The only thing that I'm honestly peeved about is the general disinterest in coming up with a good plan to fix everything. The Troop surge isn't a bad one, though its something that should have been done long before. Yes the war in Iraq probably isn't the most just war every fought, but then when have we really fought any wondeful happy fun time conflicts?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find a little stupid is that Bush is so anti-diplomacy.
I say the best way to deal with the problems there is to keep em' guessin'. A mixture of diplomacy and threat of force is going to be the best option. Bush stopped all diplomatic efforts in the area, including Israel, as soon as he took office.
That's not productive. I think he's probably doing it out of sheer stupidity....I think Cheney's encouraging the lack of diplomacy since it enriches the company that he is still the CEO of, namely, Halliburton.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link Orlox. Some very interesting discussion there - well worth listening to.
I feel like the country is still scared from 9/11. We haven't been under any serious threat of attack before then, and we don't know how to react. All the crazy torture, wire tapping, and secrets from the American people are just too much for me to accept.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: example: the per child tax credit that was such a centerpiece of Bush's economic plan was originally proposed by Lloyd Bensten while Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton. It was defeated by the then republican controlled congress.
i don't think the per-child tax credit was much of a centerpiece of Bush's economic plan. If you look at the reforms this administration got pushed through, you see things like Dick and Lynn Cheney saving (i think it was) $110,000 in income taxes last year over what they would have paid under the previous laws. Billionaire Warren Buffett pays a lower percentage income tax (16%) than his secretary does (31%).
quote:Originally posted by pooka: They're politicians, for one thing, and for another thing it isn't that hard to get contradictions out of, say, the Bible.
I don't know what you're trying to convince us of here. We do indeed want lies and contradictions to play no part in either our country's politics or our country's religions.
quote:Is it unfair to point out that if Clinton had done his job right, Osama wouldn't have ever gotten to hit New York? I mean, I understand that "Your guys a liar and fat too" is below the belt. But if his terrorism response is relevant, is it not, just as Bush's statements from his first administration are still relevant?
First of all, who says Clinton is or was anybody's "guy", let alone anybody who posted in this thread? We certainly want all politicians to not lie and truthfully represent themselves and their policies. Your tactic is not only below the belt, it distracts us from the issue at hand: the current administration, which we must deal with in the present, is full of liars, maniuplators and criminals. Also, what did 9/11 have to do with Iraq or any of the other issues that Bush has lied about? The only connection is that Bush was able to manipulate the country into letting him invade Iraq after 9/11 Bush's first cabinet meeting planning the war in Iraq happened on September 21, 2001, if I recall correctly.
If you want to talk about what "would" have stopped 9/11 from happening, why don't you consider the events of the morning of September 11th? Which President's unitary executive made NORAD stand down that day? Why was there a drill simulating the consequences of hijacked airplanes going that morning? Whose Secretary of Defense cloistered himself in a CIA briefing, refusing to give the order to scramble jets, an order that he had made sure could only be given by him. Which president sat in a classroom for 40 minutes reading about My Pet Goat when he could have been doing something?
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I do find it a tragedy that so many politicians, from all parties, feel that it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to take a stand on issues, and further to blatantly contradict themselves and outright lie whenever it suits their purposes. It's a sad state of the Union, I would say, when we all let it slide so often.
It's too hard to hold a politician accountable in a two-party system. The only way to take their seat away from them is to give it to somebody who is equally abhorrent or worse. We should set up our system so it's never a choice between the lesser of two evils. (a FairVote type system could help us out of this quagmire)
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I would just like to say for one that politicians and leaders have lied ever since they began addressing anything close to a "congegration" of people. Its not really illegal for them to not tell you the truth, at least if they're not sworn into court etc. I mean could you imagine government if they didn't lie, and don't be naive here. The thing is when it comes to our world today its nothing but spin. Ninenty-nine percent of the population doesn't really understand what they're reading half the time anyhow. The Sports section of the newspaper has the highest level of written English on average in the newspaper.
So, you see the evidence that politicians are lying to us virtually all the time and somehow you think that's not a problem that we should be dealing with, but instead it's just something we need to accept as "just what happens"?
quote: That and for another one to address the topic of "murdering" U.S. soldiers. Well for one I haven't seen him shoot any yet, but I've sure run into quite a few radical Islamics that have. Not to mention frequent failed attempts. Sendings soldiers to war is not killing them, its called having them do their job. The only thing that I'm honestly peeved about is the general disinterest in coming up with a good plan to fix everything. The Troop surge isn't a bad one, though its something that should have been done long before. Yes the war in Iraq probably isn't the most just war every fought, but then when have we really fought any wondeful happy fun time conflicts?
Bush has not directly murdered any troops as far as I know, but he has caused the wrongful death of thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by launching an illegal war.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: A must-see on the impeachment debate, Bill Moyers talks with conservative constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein and journalist John Nichols:
This was an excellent program. I'm about halfway through watching the show right now, and one of Bill's guests, Bruce Fein (sp?), just said,
quote:There's nothing right now that would prevent Congress from shutting down any of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal programs, simply saying there's no money to "collect foreign intelligence"...the power of the purse, that is an absolute power, and yet Congress shies from it.
The Democratic Party-led Congress has absolutely failed to stop Bush and Cheney's illegal programs. Case in point, they have ACTIVELY PASSED a bill last week giving Bush even more than he asked for on legalizing the unconstitutional wiretapping program and grandfathering in the program from its inception.
Another quote from Bill's other guest:
quote:Our media in the last few years has done an absolutely miserable job of highlighting the Constitutional issues that are in play. You can't have torture and extraordinary rendition, you cannot have spying, you cannot have lying to Congress, you cannot have what happened to Joe and Valerie Wilson...you can't have that and not have a media going to the President at press conferences saying "isn't that unconstitutional?"
..I'm not absolving Congress, I'm not absolving Bush and Cheney, but I'm saying we have a media problem here
posted
"Our media in the last few years has done an absolutely miserable job of highlighting the Constitutional issues that are in play. You can't have torture and extraordinary rendition, you cannot have spying, you cannot have lying to Congress, you cannot have what happened to Joe and Valerie Wilson...you can't have that and not have a media going to the President at press conferences saying "isn't that unconstitutional?""
Well you can when its the president, ultimately, who determines who can come to the press briefings. No access at the white house=no newspaper.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> "Well you can when its the president, ultimately, who determines who can come to the press briefings. No access at the white house=no newspaper."
I don't think you can even begin to account for the problems with the corporate media through analysis of the White House's draconian rules for the treatment of the Press in the White House briefing room and on Air Force One etc, although I think the fact that the media has not raged against these practices wholesale is further evidence that there is something deeply wrong with the media.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes the war in Iraq probably isn't the most just war every fought, but then when have we really fought any wondeful happy fun time conflicts?
Having and "unjust" war and terrible conflicts are two entirely different things. You can have a just war with horrible conflict (WWII). An unjust war is a league of its own and should not be belittled to not "wonderful happy fun."
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: This is very true, Pooka, but it hasn't stopped many people on both sides of the aisle from using the same tactics. Limbaugh pretty much pioneered it. Carville practically perfected it in pillorying Bush Prime for actually daring to cooperate with the Democrats.
I don't know much about what the state of debate was like before that time, but I sure as hell think that it makes absolutely no sense for the parties to cooperate now, as they have clearly shown they will hang each other for compromising and freely co-opt each other's ideas.
example: the per child tax credit that was such a centerpiece of Bush's economic plan was originally proposed by Lloyd Bensten while Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton. It was defeated by the then republican controlled congress.
In so many ways, Chesterton was right on the money when he said "it's terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."
I believe there's a joke that goes something like "How can you tell if a politician is lying? His mouth is open..."
When Carville expressed admiration for Karl Rove in a piece in Time, my opinion of Rove didn't change much, but my opinion of Carville did, even as my stomach took a slow dip and turn. Sometimes there's more at stake than a win or a loss, and if the only people who rise to the job don't recognize it, God help us all.
Now, I lean pretty hard to the left. But one of the people in politics who has my admiration right now is the Republican Senator of Oregon, Gordon Smith. He caught my attention voting against opening ANWR several years ago, has begun speaking against the occupation in Iraq, and according to most accounts has a lot of admiration from both sides for being a moderate who bridges gaps.
I compare that to, say, Hillary Clinton, who's made any number of stances that seemed based on which voter base would be attracted according to the polls. This is the sort of lack of conviction and unwillingness to take risks that one expects of some long-running incumbent House member who putters along for twenty years sending little pork projects back home before retiring to pension and the forgetfulness of history; it didn't use to be the hallmark of potential leaders. If Clinton gets the nomination and wins, I'll be glad that the person in the chair finally seems to be someone of basic intelligence and competence, and that the United States finally has shown itself capable of electing a woman to its highest office- but I won't expect anything miraculous. Quite possibly Congress swinging back, in fact.
Of course, I won't have to turn purple when Bush says with a straight face that bridge improvements or health insurance for children are too expensive while he continues to flog the war in Iraq. Conviction without competence, without perspective, is disaster, as I feel the current administration amply demonstrates.
I long for intelligent voices within every party and every branch of government that can force themselves to be heard when they say "No, this is a fool's path to disaster, and this is why, and what could you possibly be thinking?"
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
