He lied
 

They tried to impeach Bill Clinton for having sex in the white house becuz he lied...does the fact that George Bush lied about Iraq trying to obtain uranium to show WMDs exist have any merit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle

The offense was that Clinton lied under oath, thus commiting purgery. Bush lies through his teeth, but not yet under oath.

It depends on what the meaning of "IS" is.....

Really, Clinton said something he knew to be false, in a court proceeding, while under oath.

Bush repeated intelligence that at worst, he knew to be suspect, but you can't say that he actually knew it to be false. Intelligence analysts always hedge any information they impart, much like economic advisers.

Man when is that meme going to disappear? Clinton was not impeached for sex, but for lying under oath. Gheee whizzzzzz. Learn your facts before you start shouting.

Politics is about splitting hairs. ;)

For lying under oath.....the president of the United states is under oath all the gosh darn time....but still he lied.
Why is he allowed to do this?
Endymon32 don't you want to know why he made this stuff and why he needed to in order to attack a country?
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/mondo2.php

No the president is not under oath all the time. I dont know what you mean with your last sentence. Can you clarify it for me, please? Thanks.

Since i sometimes have a hard time explaining myself (just ask my girlfriend) i found some info on website that is talking about what i am trying to get across. So instead of plagarising it i thought i would site it.

The following is from here:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/howtoimpeach.html

'Making statements about sexual affairs in sleazeball investigations is not a duty of the President. Yet, when President Clinton lied about a sexual affair, he was impeached
.
On the other hand, the State of the Union IS a presidential duty. In fact, it says so in the Constitution
:
Article 2, Section 3
Duties of the President
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union...

Bush blatantly lied while performing this duty.

So now we'll see...is lying to Paula Jones' attorneys an impeachable offense, but lying to Congress and the American people, while performing one of the few explicitly enumerated duties of the president, in order to build support for a war on false pretenses is NOT an impeachable offense?

But he wasn't under oath...

unless you count the "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..." part of the swearing in ceremony...)

Yes, he was under oath

As you noted, it was the Oath of Office. '

Interesting point, mrbuck12000...


I will have to consider this most carefully.

That's a perspective I haven't heard before, mrbuck12000. Of course, it comes down to what you can prove to a majority of the House of Representatives, a legislative body so "whipped" by party leadership that it doesn't have a thought in it's head that wasn't put there by DeLay.

This all boils down to the definition of lying. Are you lying when something *might* be false? And if you know it might be?

Lying, like everything on this planet, isn't a pretty black/white thing. Ex: If I told you that the earth was flat, I'd be lying. However, 400 years ago, I'd be telling the "truth" with that same statement, simply because nobody would have known it was a lie, including me...

I think that lying does include making statements one believes or suspects are false.

Rather, lying depends on one's intent. If you want to convince someone of your point or to take a course of action they might otherwise not do, then using information you suspect is false or intentionally refusing to research the claim (that is, "don't tell me if you find out this is wrong so my conscious can stay in the clear") is dishonest behavior.

Using your flat earth example:

If you don't know the world is round, then you are just wrong when you say it's flat. If you suspect, or if someone tells you, that it's round and you continue to claim that all known evidence points to the fact that it's flat, then you are being dishonest.

Worse, if you realize you are wrong but want to tell people the original claim, stating something like, "We have a report from our friends in Italy that says the earth is flat" is definately dishonesty even if you then claim, "well, we never said it was flat, they told us it was flat and we just relayed the information."

Ah, but Smooth... do you *know* that Bush knew/suspected the claims were false? You just assume that he knew, even though many people around the world assume, nay, know, that he's the dumbest person alive... :)

Until we can magically read his mind, we cannot know if Bush knows *anything*, and we cannot say for certain that he lied.

I was mainly answering your question as to what I thought constituted dishonesty.

In regards to Bush and Co., I can't magically read minds but I can draw inferences from the information that the media has given to the public.

The first piece of info is that the claims were researched by US intelligence officials and reported as false.

Secondly, references to our investigation were removed and the information gained was ignored. I read from a couple of sources that officials were pressured into finding what was already suspected. I doubt it was in the form of overt manipulation. More likely, revise and resubmit was the response and people became aware of what was needed or desired and wrote their reports accordingly. I wouldn't be surprised to find the best team players are the ones who will or have been promoted. Again, not due to some conspiracy, but rather due to the fact that people who were team players appeared to be the most efficient and knowledgable workers--even though they drew erroneous conclusions.

Thirdly, Bush claimed his information came from British intelligence rather than us, even though our own investigation had rejected it and British officials had seriously began questioning their information.

I think I can reasonably infer that Bush suspected or knew that the claim was tenuous, at best, and more likely than not to be false. In order to appease his conscious and/or the legalalities of any erroneous claims he made, he placed the source of his claim on a foreign agency instead of our own agencies.

I haven't heard anything else besides the fact that State of the Union addresses are the most carefully vetted speeches--from both liberal and conservative sources. I recognize that Bush certainly had motive to present this evidence even if he felt is wasn't entirely justified.

All of this leads me to believe that he was being dishonest. While I may not know if I certainly can suspect it and vote accordingly. No one can know what others think and do, anyway, and our jury system is built on the premise that we will make the best judgement in response to the available data. I'm disturbed that processes to ascertain exactly what everyone knew and didn't know are being hindered.

I am not one of the people who claim Bush is moronic--but I do claim that he isn't concerned or empathetic with my needs and concerns. I claim that he is more concerned with serving the interests of the wealthy individuals and corporations in my country than what I consider to be more important to social welfare. The legitimacy of the top slot in my government's structure is one of those elements of social welfare I am increasingly concerned about.

Too bad that information that Bush used has already passed the Senate house of intellegence committee three times ( which was populated by 51% democrates) so Bush was acting on intellegence that was scrutinized THREE times and passed to the president by normal channels.
Twice it was cleared and once used by Cinton. So you can not say Bush lied. The information was given to him in good faith. So no lie was committed, unless you wish to say that there was a senate conspiracy of both rebupblicans and democrates to make BOTH Clinton and Bush look bad.

This is another meme based in poorly understood information.

There's not get too far away from the basic facts.

UN investigations found no weapons.

No weapons have been found even now.

Top intelligence sources told the UK and the US that Iraq probably had no WMD, and if they did they were very unlikely to have used them.

Bush may have the excuse that he could not have known for certain the WMD did not exist, but everything indicated to them they did not, and he told the American people he believed that they did. Either he is stupid (ie - he believed something that was wrong and he ought to have known was wrong) or he intentionally mislead America.

I say "Shame on Bush, Shame on You!"

lets review the facts shall we, for the upteenth time

Saddam killed three million people.

He invaded a neigbhbor, and had plans to invade another.

He failed.

He signed a treaty that said he had to provide proof that he destroyed his WMD, and if he didnt, we could remove him.

He played games with inspectors for 12 years.

We asked him to surrender, he didnt


We took him out.

And we found biological weapons in his secrect espionage hideouts.


I say, shame on the UN.

I say, good for you Bush.

The invasion of Kuwait was actually provoked by Kuwait cross drilling into neutral territory between the two countries if I remember. The Kuwaiti government is also undemocratic and resposnible for many human rights abuses.

More Iraqi's where killed by UN sanctions than Hussain, although I agree and have never denied Hussain was a butcher and America should have helped his people remove him a long time ago.

No weapons were found, only certain materials that COULD have been part of a weapons programme and which Iraq was forbidden to have - this is not the same as finding biological weapons.

Once again, legally it is the same.

Legally it may be, in terms of Bush's and Blair's statements to the people it is very different.

You need to separate the actions of a country from the rhetoric used to justify those actions.

The Kuwaiti government is a constitutional monarcy. Same as Britian, They have a king, and a prime minister and a parliament of elected officials. So you are wrong,,,again. So you are saying that if there is a dispute among nations, war is justified? We can invade Canada cause they sold us Mad Cows? Why did Saddam not take his grievence to the UN? You live in a scary world.

Quote:

[More Iraqi's where killed by UN sanctions than Hussain, although I agree and have never denied Hussain was a butcher and America should have helped his people remove him a long time ago.

You are forgetting that Saddam bought medicine and food from the US in exchange for oil. He also choose to buy WEAPONS from France, CHina, Russian and Germany. This is why his people starved. They starved cause the UN failed Iraq, and three security council members bypassed their own resolutions and enabled Saddam to starve his people. I told you this numerous times and still you fail to see truth. You clearly dont wish to see the truth.
You leave out the fact that England and the US sold medicine and food to Saddam, and his people still starved. And then you blam the US for doing what it was supposed to do.

Quote:

[No weapons were found, only certain materials that COULD have been part of a weapons programme and which Iraq was forbidden to have - this is not the same as finding biological weapons.

Yet again, can you please tell me what purpose Crimean Congo Hemmorage Fever could possibly serve? Your adamant denial of the facts is scary.

i Guees rogue pretty much has summed this discussion up earlier. Its a he said she said thing....will we ever no, probably not but hopefully the american will decide far and square in the next election.

mr.b

Kuwait is a nominal constitutional monarchy.

The prime minister and deputy prime minister are appointed by the monarch, who ascends the throne because of birth.
The current crop of elected officials (about 70%) are all allied as "monarchists"

Formation of political parties is illegal. Suffrage is only to adult males who have been naturalized for 30 years or more. Consequently, only 10% of the nation is eligible to vote.

Human rights
http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/p...wt-summary-eng
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast_pub&c=kuwait

Why did Saddam not take his grievance to the UN? Because the UN wanted nothing to do with him because of his gross abuse of human rights. But he did have one friend, the USA. He took his grievance to us.

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Wanna provide two sources for this being found right before, during, or after the war?
Can you?

There is a problem of that over there actually.

http://www.deploymenthealth.mil/depl...ar/crimean.asp

But it is a problem because the Iraqi ticks over there are infected with it.

And the other problem is that it was undeclared to the UN, why is that? Out of all the medical research being done in Iraq does this dieasse make it into the Kay report? Remember Kay, a UN weapon's inspector? I assume you think that UN training can distinguish medical research and weapon research?

he still lied

Agreed.

That 'Me too' appears to be a lie as he is spending money like a liberal. Of course the liberals won't give him any credit for it, but thats to be expected, only they are allowed to spend money foolishly :p

Clinton lied and just happened to play hide the cigar tube with monica, oh yeah and he got a little hummer. Bush said Iraq has WMD and they were harbouring al-queda, where are the WMD where's the Al-Quaeda

You know as a right winger, I could care less who he got a hummer from. On the other hand Global Crossings, tech trades to communist china, Vince Foster (no I don't think he was murdered, I do think they took records out of his office), travel gate, Somalia, HilaryCare, military gutting, Tyson foods, Cattle futures, and lets not forget the pardons, makes me a bit upset.

Oh and those are just the ones off the top of my head without refreshing my memory from those lovely 8 years.

i see your point but as a Canadian we don't have controversial politicians. the worst thing that happened was when Chretien's aide called i can't remember from the US government i think it was dumb.(probably true) that's why i love slick willy.

It's kind of hard not to "Cross-drill" when the contents of the natural border of an oil field do not match the borders that we drew over the middle of the field.

It's not hard to not "cross-drill" when you drill your shaft on an angle so that your shaft extends into your neighbors property to extract oil that could not be extracted by you any other way.
Which was the charge against Kuwait.

so was it "neutral territory" or their "neighbors property". And regardless, did that justify - as strange famous would suggest, the gassing of 500,000 (or however many hundreds of thousands) of innocent Kurds. As if either one of them were hurting in their oil supplies - it would require: a)sneakily drilling on an angle and in the event you get caught b) gassing the entire offending country.

Strange Famous, when will you realize that America is not the enemy.

It wasn't just slant oil drilling.

Both Iraq and Kuwait were being tremendous assholes about it the whole way through.

http://www.serve.com/vitw/pages/why_...de_kuwait.html

Hehe that website is amusing.

Nothing like trying to justify the invasion of Kwait. I wonder if theyalso try to justifiy what Saddams forces DID to the people of Kwait?

No, because the timeline stops when Iraq invades Kuwait.

That timeline isn't friendly to either side, it accuses both of lies, crimes and outright thuggery.

Do you have some image in your head of Kuwait being some innocent bystander to Saddams ruthless advances?

Superbelt, that post is a great summary. People should read up on matters instead of making blanket statments and draw premature conclusions.