Obama Lied... and Good Men Died

[Woodruff]

Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

[Doc_Brown]

Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

[Woodruff]

Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Was it proven to be perjury (I honestly don't recall). I looked it up, and came across this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/what_is_clintons_perjury_defense.html

[Doc_Brown]

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Was it proven to be perjury (I honestly don't recall). I looked it up, and came across this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/what_is_clintons_perjury_defense.html

The Senate declined to convict him, so in a legal sense, he is not guilty of committing perjury. Congress impeached him, which is the equivalent to a grand jury indictment, which means there was a reasonable case to be made that he did commit perjury. He was found in contempt of court and fined, and he lost his Arkansas law license for 5 years and was permanently disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/13/us/cl ... wsuit.html
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/30/news/mn-61021
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndG ... 011001.htm

[Woodruff]

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

I forget, is perjury a high crime or misdemeanor? I know it's at least a sufficient black mark to merit disbarment. But we probably shouldn't expect the president of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief of her military to be held to the same high standards as lawyers and ambulance chasers.

Was it proven to be perjury (I honestly don't recall). I looked it up, and came across this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1998/12/what_is_clintons_perjury_defense.html

The Senate declined to convict him, so in a legal sense, he is not guilty of committing perjury. Congress impeached him, which is the equivalent to a grand jury indictment, which means there was a reasonable case to be made that he did commit perjury. He was found in contempt of court and fined, and he lost his Arkansas law license for 5 years and was permanently disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/13/us/cl ... wsuit.html
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/30/news/mn-61021
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndG ... 011001.htm

I do agree that there was a reasonable case to be made that he did commit perjury (by MY definition, as opposed to the LEGAL definition of lying, he lied). However, per the legalities, he did not commit perjury, which was my point.

Aside from that reasonable aspect, the Lewinsky situation did not merit all of the angst that came out of it, to be honest.

[tzor]

Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

In hindsight, if you really want an honest answer, I think the Clinton perjury was a .8 to .9 on the Nixon Scale.

It is borderline at best and probably not worth the expense on average and probably not a significant offense to impeach at worst.

Mind you, in either Clinton's or Nixon's purjury ... NO ONE DIED.

Fast and Furious is probably a 2.0 on the Nixon Scale.

In the case of Benghazi, It's at a minimum of 10.0 on the Nixon Scale and might even reach TREASON.

[Woodruff]

Cmon, everyone knows Politicians and Presidents don't lie.

Presidents who lie (Nixon) should be threatened with impeachment and forced to resign, for the good of the Presidency.
Unless you are a Democrat and you lie about sex. In that case your wife should be elected Senator.

Do you actually believe the Clinton situation merited impeachment?

In hindsight, if you really want an honest answer, I think the Clinton perjury was a .8 to .9 on the Nixon Scale.

It is borderline at best and probably not worth the expense on average and probably not a significant offense to impeach at worst.

Mind you, in either Clinton's or Nixon's purjury ... NO ONE DIED.

Fast and Furious is probably a 2.0 on the Nixon Scale.

In the case of Benghazi, It's at a minimum of 10.0 on the Nixon Scale and might even reach TREASON.

So then you're pursuing Bush as well? Or is this just a partisan thing?

[tzor]

So then you're pursuing Bush as well? Or is this just a partisan thing?

Bush was only continuing the line started by Clinton. Quotes from Democrats About the Threat of Iraq

It was also maintained by many democrats of the time ...

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

If everyone believes in a falsehood, how can it be a "lie?"

[PLAYER57832]

. ... Fact 2. The President did not send in the Marines. He did not send gun ships. He did not send anybody. He abandoned those people.
...

So you are under the impression that marines or gun ships could have arrived at the embassy within the 15 minutes or so it took for it to go in full swing... and noting that by the time Obama DID know, it was a few minutes after the attack had commenced?

Also, did it ever occur to you that maybe he wanted to calm the American people in a post 911 climate where far too many people here "terrorism" and basically stop thinking. OR even that he might have wanted to temporarily take focus off the terrorists by non-professionals, that is, let the pundits talk about preventing a riot, etc... instead of trying to themselves discover which group was responsible and thereby wind up blurring the real investigation?

Did you know that its police often give slightly "off" information about big crimes, both to try and give the guilty the impression that the police are not looking in the correct direction and specifically to help weed out those who actually know the truth?

Now.. if you want to argue about whether there should have been more security at the embassy BEFORE the attack, that is a legitimate debate. However, you have to remember that the requests, then were not for "gun ships", but for 1-2 more armed personnel. The real truth is that HAD Obama approved them, it would not have made a significant difference at that point. Again, whether more should have been done before that, whether requests for even more security should have been submitted -- that is a different question, but that failure would not be the presidents. (and yes, I have said similar things about Bush, previously, when appropriate).

[tzor]

So you are under the impression that marines or gun ships could have arrived at the embassy within the 15 minutes or so it took for it to go in full swing... and noting that by the time Obama DID know, it was a few minutes after the attack had commenced?

Some important FACTS to consider
The assult took place over the span of seven hours.
There was a marine post right down the block.
Several marines apparently disobeyed orders and rushed there.
The local commander had been relieved of command!

The CIA has categorically denied ordering the forces to stand down; that means that order had to come from higher up in the chain. Specifically the POTUS.

[Woodruff]

So then you're pursuing Bush as well? Or is this just a partisan thing?

Bush was only continuing the line started by Clinton.

So it's just a partisan thing, as I suspected. Thanks.

[tzor]

So it's just a partisan thing, as I suspected. Thanks.

I can't help it if you continue to wear those red colored glasses, but there is a difference between convincing yourself on flimsy evidence and knowing that something is one thing and saying the opposite.

There is no solid evidence to suggest that Bush knew for a fact that there were not weapons out there.

There is solid evidence to suggest that everyone in a bipartisan manner bought into the flimsy evidence as being rock hard solid when it was simply not true.

President Clinton used that same flimsy evidence to conduct military strikes in Iran in 1998. He no more "lied" than Bush.

Yes, Bush also had alterior motives for going to war with Iraq, and these were clearly not good, but we are specifically talking about "lies."

And it still doesn't compare to the Spanish American War *you remember the Maine right*

McKinley, although forced reluctantly by congress to go into war was ... wait for it ... a Republican.

[Dukasaur]

...

... For all the attention this is getting from major media, it's like Woodward and Bernstein helping Nixon cover up Watergate.

...

Yeah, America's famous free press.

So free they swallowed the Warren Commission Report hook, line and sinker.

So free they fell over themselves to repeat Bush's lies about WMDs in Iraq, and then fell over themselves a second time, pretending that the first time hadn't happened, once it became obvious that the lies would be exposed.

Why would you think it would be any different this time?

[Woodruff]

So it's just a partisan thing, as I suspected. Thanks.

I can't help it if you continue to wear those red colored glasses

It's not red-colored glasses if I recognize that you pursue one individual for something but not another individual who did the same thing. It's just my recognition that you're a partisan hack.

There is no solid evidence to suggest that Bush knew for a fact that there were not weapons out there.

There is solid evidence to suggest that everyone in a bipartisan manner bought into the flimsy evidence as being rock hard solid when it was simply not true.

President Clinton used that same flimsy evidence to conduct military strikes in Iran in 1998. He no more "lied" than Bush.

Yes, Bush also had alterior motives for going to war with Iraq, and these were clearly not good, but we are specifically talking about "lies."

And it still doesn't compare to the Spanish American War *you remember the Maine right*

McKinley, although forced reluctantly by congress to go into war was ... wait for it ... a Republican.

Yeah, you're not partisan at all!

[tzor]

It's not red-colored glasses if I recognize that you pursue one individual for something but not another individual who did the same thing. It's just my recognition that you're a partisan hack.

It is YOU that insist that they are the same thing. They are not the same thing. You are wrong.

Whether or not I am occasionally partisan is besides the point that they are not the same thing.

You must leave the emotional baggage behind you if you are to fully accept logic.