The impending impeachment attempt on GWB

[quote name='MrBadExample']If nothing else, I hope these hearings turn up the heat on Bush and Blair politically and further reinforce that they cannot be trusted.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't too surprised that Bush managed to get re-elected in the U.S. given his strong conservative base, but I actually was shocked that Blair managed to get re-elected as well. I thought a majority of Britain's population disagreed with the Iraq invasion, but they still wanted the guy that put them there to remain in office. I don't understand that kind of logic.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']per·ju·ry P Pronunciation Key (pûrj-r)
n. pl. per·ju·ries
Law. The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath.
The breach of an oath or promise.

You want to point out where I'm wrong?[/QUOTE]

Read what I posted. I even bolded and underlined the word MATERIAL. Clinton's testimony about Monica was not material to the case so it was not perjury. It was still a lie, just not perjury.
 
And again, you're wrong. Lying under oath is perjury. End of story.

If not, what did Clinton lose his license to practice law for? Getting a blow job?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']And again, you're wrong. Lying under oath is perjury. End of story.

If not, what did Clinton lose his license to practice law for? Getting a blow job?[/QUOTE]

I guess you just can't handle the truth. I proved you wrong. THAT is the end of the story
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']I guess you just can't handle the truth. I proved you wrong. THAT is the end of the story[/QUOTE]

You did? All you did was make a statement, but PAD posted a definition that wasn't his own (which was consistent with what I understood perjury to be).
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']I guess you just can't handle the truth. I proved you wrong. THAT is the end of the story[/QUOTE]

You haven't proven shit.

Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are. It's okay that you're a horse faced jackass that doesn't realize he's wrong.

Jesus and I still love you.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You did? All you did was make a statement, but PAD posted a definition that wasn't his own (which was consistent with what I understood perjury to be).[/QUOTE]

I did. I posted a definition WITH a link to that definition.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You haven't proven shit.

Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are. It's okay that you're a horse faced jackass that doesn't realize he's wrong.

Jesus and I still love you.[/QUOTE]

I know I'm right, and I posted a link to the LEGAL definition to back up my point. If you like some more here are some more links.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html#Backclintonjonesperjury
http://slate.msn.com/id/1002007/
http://www.publico.clix.pt/servico/notinuse/starrclinton/RespostaClinton/rebuttal6.html
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/717ED497-87A3-4C24-AB5C5FDB5E82409D/alpha/D/
 
Your definition also supports my claim Brainiac, material in your definition is not in relation to the central argument of the case.

Do you even know how to read comprehensively or do you just see the word "material" regardless of context and say OMG OMG LOOK I'M TEH RIGHT!!1!11! OMG OMG OGM UR WRONG!1!1!!!

The next sentence after your quoted paragraph stated In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

Did Clinton knowingly make false statements under oath. Yes. Did he know at the time that his testimony was false. Yes.

Why did he surrender his law license? Because it was a deal made to avoid having to answer to a perjury inquiry.

The innocent don't make deals. Especially a sitting President of the United States, which Clinton was at the time he gave up his law license. He did it to avoid the embarassment of being disbarred.

Why would he have been disbarred? For knowingly giving false testimony aka..... perjury.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Your definition also supports my claim Brainiac, material in your definition is not in relation to the central argument of the case.

Do you even know how to read comprehensively or do you just see the word "material" regardless of context and say OMG OMG LOOK I'M TEH RIGHT!!1!11! OMG OMG OGM UR WRONG!1!1!!!

The next sentence after your quoted paragraph stated In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

Did Clinton knowingly make false statements under oath. Yes. Did he know at the time that his testimony was false. Yes.

Why did he surrender his law license? Because it was a deal made to avoid having to answer to a perjury inquiry.

The innocent don't make deals. Especially sitting a President of the United States.[/QUOTE]

The innocent make deals all the time for various reasons, such as they cannot afford to fight anymore.. Read my other links. Guess what. Clinton gave technically accurate answers to the questions he was asked.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']The innocent make deals all the time for various reasons, such as they cannot afford to fight anymore.. Read my other links. Guess what. Clinton gave technically accurate answers to the questions he was asked.[/QUOTE]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A sitting President of the United States that can't afford to fight legally anymore.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop, I can't take it! No seriously, that was laugh out loud funny.

Hold on why I leave this thread because of the overwhelming stupidity you just exhibited.
 
So, PAD, you're basically saying it's ok to lie as long as it isn't under oath. Once you lie under oath, you are impeachment bait. Lucky for Bush his fellow Republicans will never allow this to get to the point where Bush will have to testify under oath.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A sitting President of the United States that can't afford to fight legally anymore.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop, I can't take it! No seriously, that was laugh out loud funny.

Hold on why I leave this thread because of the overwhelming stupidity you just exhibited.[/QUOTE]

When people say "afford" it isn't always due to money. Look at what michael jackson went through, he could have skipped the whole trial if he just paid them off.
 
Get over the whole "Bush lied, people died." argument.

Seriously.

I'm not rehashing bad intelligence versus a knowing lie. If you believe it to be a deliberate falsehood I can only say it's nice that you do. The more lefties we can get arguing about 2002 in 2005 and beyond the kookier they look as a whole to the general population.

You do know you're in a fringe minority and viewed as a kook, right? Not that I care, I wish we had another 20 million just like you. Then we'd never have the National Socialist Democratic party to worry about ever again.

Yeah, you know, the Nazi Democrats? Yep, I went there.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Get over the whole "Bush lied, people died." argument.

Seriously.

I'm not rehashing bad intelligence versus a knowing lie. If you believe it to be a deliberate falsehood I can only say it's nice that you do. The more lefties we can get arguing about 2002 in 2005 and beyond the kookier they look as a whole to the general population.

You do know you're in a fringe minority and viewed as a kook, right? Not that I care, I wish we had another 20 million just like you. Then we'd never have the National Socialist Democratic party to worry about ever again.

Yeah, you know, the Nazi Democrats? Yep, I went there.[/QUOTE]

So we, as Americans, should just get over the fact that 1,720 US soldiers have died? How exactly is that "Supporting the Troops" again?

The lie here is not about WMDs. It's about telling the US and the world that diplomacy was an option when war was the plan all along. Diplomacy and inspections were never an option for this administration and they only pretended to play nice to get support for the war they knew would happen.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A sitting President of the United States that can't afford to fight legally anymore.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop, I can't take it! No seriously, that was laugh out loud funny.

Hold on why I leave this thread because of the overwhelming stupidity you just exhibited.[/QUOTE]

PAD, you are the one showing stupidity. It always amazes me the idiocy of your posts. I always get a good laugh at them. Why not take a penalty instead of having something draw out through the courts for years?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Uh... get over the whole "Republicans r teh rawkz! Democrats= teh dummi!" Arguement.[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about Republicans rocking? I'm disgusted by the majority of them

The Dims aren't dumb. They're traitorous. See Dick "The Turban" Durban.
 
So... what the hell party are you?

I've just assumed with you extremist conservative views that you'd be republican.
 
Since where talking about anti bush signs, anyone think this is funny "if you can read this you're not the president", I found it in my drawer and think it's funny (it's a bumper sticker), but I have a strange sense of humor, so I can't decide if I should use it or not.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Since where talking about anti bush signs, anyone think this is funny "if you can read this you're not the president", I found it in my drawer and think it's funny (it's a bumper sticker), but I have a strange sense of humor, so I can't decide if I should use it or not.[/QUOTE]

That's great! I liked the other day when he said "disassemble" meant "to not tell the truth" then the news pointed out that "dissemble" was the Word of the Day for the day before the sppech.
 
[quote name='coffman']Today will be the beginnings of an inquiry into the Downing Street memos. These memos are proof that Bush had no intention of averting a war with Iraq and that intelligence was twisted and made up in order to justify going to war. I believe the case will eventually be made that Bush has committed acts which justify impeachment. Republicans are refusing to particpate in the hearing (of course) and tried to keep the democrats from holding the meeting in the capital, but the democrats managed to get a small room to hold the hearing. Since the Republicans control congress, there is no way Bush will actually be impeached, but I think there could be some surprises in store for the Republicans in next year's elections due to this issue.[/QUOTE]

[font=Verdana, Arial][size=-1] As both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair pointed out the memo was written before the United States made its case to the United Nations. But if the U.S. had never intended other than war, the question should be asked of the purple-faced pundits clutching the memo, why did we bother to take our case to the global body??

There is no doubt that the U.S. resolved early on that Saddam would either submit to international resolutions demanding full compliance or face invasion, but there is no reasonable doubt that it was Saddam who made the choice for war by refusing to comply, not the United States. [/size][/font]
 
[quote name='vindicator'][font=Verdana, Arial][size=-1] As both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair pointed out the memo was written before the United States made its case to the United Nations. But if the U.S. had never intended other than war, the question should be asked of the purple-faced pundits clutching the memo, why did we bother to take our case to the global body??

There is no doubt that the U.S. resolved early on that Saddam would either submit to international resolutions demanding full compliance or face invasion, but there is no reasonable doubt that it was Saddam who made the choice for war by refusing to comply, not the United States. [/size][/font][/QUOTE]

How did he not comply? The inspectors were in Iraq. We had to pull them out to invade. In fact, just before we went in, the inspectors were destroying Saddam's AL-Samood missles (not sure of the spelling), that were over the range limit that he was supposed to abide by.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']How did he not comply? The inspectors were in Iraq. We had to pull them out to invade. In fact, just before we went in, the inspectors were destroying Saddam's AL-Samood missles (not sure of the spelling), that were over the range limit that he was supposed to abide by.[/QUOTE]I hope you are familiar with resolution 1441. Which Saddam did not comply too.

This one here is one of many parts of the resolution to which Saddam did not comply.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Click to expand...

Sorry, but simply telling the world you no longer possess these weapons is not a valid disclosure to all WMD weapons and programs he may or may not have had.
 
[quote name='vindicator']I hope you are familiar with resolution 1441. Which Saddam did not comply too.

This one here is one of many parts of the resolution to which Saddam did not comply.



Sorry, but simply telling the world you no longer possess these weapons is not a valid disclosure to all WMD weapons and programs he may or may not have had.[/QUOTE]


Link please. If Saddam was in such violation of 1441, why didn't the UN ok the invasion then? The inspections were still in Iraq when the decison was made to invade, why couldn't we have waited until the inspectors were done?
 
Angry Left Fantasyland
"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe," reports the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. They held a pretend "impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war," with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, playing "chairman," in which role he "spouted . . . chairmanly phrases, such as 'unanimous consent' and 'without objection so ordered.' " Conyers & Co. called several "witnesses," among them Ray McGovern, who "said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon":

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations--that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11--that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.

We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006838
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Link please. If Saddam was in such violation of 1441, why didn't the UN ok the invasion then? The inspections were still in Iraq when the decison was made to invade, why couldn't we have waited until the inspectors were done?[/QUOTE]

This argument has been made ad nausium.

If you don't understand at this moment that the Iraqi's could have blown up Paris and the French still would have vetoed the 18th UN Resolution against them than you are absolutely not worth continuing the conversation with.

And frankly other than Gulf War I who has ever used the UN Sec Council to authorize war?

Get off your high horse.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Link please. If Saddam was in such violation of 1441, why didn't the UN ok the invasion then? The inspections were still in Iraq when the decison was made to invade, why couldn't we have waited until the inspectors were done?[/QUOTE] You need a link? Are you not aware of google?

Okay then, because copy & pasting "resolution 1441" into google is so difficult for some people.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
 
Wow we are still agrueing over the UN???

The UN is shit, it have been proven time and time again, Bush tellnig the UN to fuck off was the smartest thing he has ever done.

Saddam and the "president" of France have been friends since the 70s, France would have vetoed the invasion if Paris itself was nuked by Iraq.
 
[quote name='David85']Wow we are still agrueing over the UN???

The UN is shit, it have been proven time and time again, Bush tellnig the UN to fuck off was the smartest thing he has ever done.

Saddam and the "president" of France have been friends since the 70s, France would have vetoed the invasion if Paris itself was nuked by Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Bra - fucking -vo.
 
[quote name='David85']
Saddam and the "president" of France have been friends since the 70s, France would have vetoed the invasion if Paris itself was nuked by Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't sound too much different from Bush invading to finish up what his father started..... oh wait one of those didn't cost over a thousand american lives.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And frankly other than Gulf War I who has ever used the UN Sec Council to authorize war?[/QUOTE]

Kind of going off on a tangent, but Korea 1950 FYI.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Angry Left Fantasyland
"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe," reports the Washington Post's Dana Milbank. They held a pretend "impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war," with Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, playing "chairman," in which role he "spouted . . . chairmanly phrases, such as 'unanimous consent' and 'without objection so ordered.' " Conyers & Co. called several "witnesses," among them Ray McGovern, who "said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon":

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations--that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11--that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

There's been a spate of stories lately about President Bush's poor poll numbers--the importance of which is a mystery to us, given that the next presidential election is almost 3 1/2 years away, and Bush won't be a candidate in any case. At the same time, the Angry Left seems to be getting less inhibited: witness Howard Dean's various bouts of logorrhea, Charlie Rangel's and Dick Durbin's outrageous Americans-are-Nazis claims, and now this.

We suspect there's a connection here: The liberal media are persuading liberal pols that President Bush is in trouble with the public. The pols therefore conclude that the public is on their side, and this emboldens them to . . . well, in our opinion, to behave like total jackasses. Although we find this all somewhat vexing, we're guessing that in the end it will not pay off politically for the Dems.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006838[/QUOTE]

Dana Milbank's piece of shit articles are junk journalism. He only focused on one small part of the inquiry. Granted that person who claimed that Israel was behind 9/11 is obviously a kook, the rest of the inquiry focused on very valid concerns of Bush's abuse of power.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Doesn't sound too much different from Bush invading to finish up what his father started..... oh wait one of those didn't cost over a thousand american lives.[/QUOTE]


Well his farther listened to the UN, that was the problem.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I'm just saying that listening to the UN is fucking dumb.
 
[quote name='David85']Well his farther listened to the UN, that was the problem.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I'm just saying that listening to the UN is fucking dumb.[/QUOTE]


... You're saying that listening to the collective voice of the civilized world is a bad thing? Oh yea, of course it is. America is ALWAYS right. :roll: Patriotism is one thing, but fellating your country is asinine...
 
[quote name='David85']Well his farther listened to the UN, that was the problem.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I'm just saying that listening to the UN is fucking dumb.[/QUOTE]
And you would rather listen to the people who want you to die because you are gay.

Makes sense.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And you would rather listen to the people who want you to die because you are gay.

Makes sense.[/QUOTE]

I'm coming to the conclusion that america should say "ok, we fucked up. We don't know how to run ourselves. Here, please run our country for us massachusetts."

Then we'd have gay marriage and, hell, our republican governor wants to institute a system that would mean everyone has health care (I'm not thrilled with it, but I guess it's better than nothing).
 
[quote name='vindicator']You need a link? Are you not aware of google?

Okay then, because copy & pasting "resolution 1441" into google is so difficult for some people.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm[/QUOTE]

You also didn't answer my question. Why did we have to go in when we did, why couldn't we wait for the inspectors to finish their job. According to Hans Blix, it would have taken months to finish the inspections and we didn't give him the time.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm coming to the conclusion that america should say "ok, we fucked up. We don't know how to run ourselves. Here, please run our country for us massachusetts."

Then we'd have gay marriage and, hell, our republican governor wants to institute a system that would mean everyone has health care (I'm not thrilled with it, but I guess it's better than nothing).[/QUOTE]
He's running in 2008, so you may get your wish. Of course, I think that we can come up with a better MA-representative than Mitt (on the other side of the fence preferably), but that's another story.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']He's running in 2008, so you may get your wish. Of course, I think that we can come up with a better MA-representative than Mitt (on the other side of the fence preferably), but that's another story.[/QUOTE]


Oh, I don't like romney, I just like what's been happening in my state recently, especially compared with the rest of the country. Much of which was done against romney's will, such as stem cell research (forced through with overwhelming support so he couldn't veto it) and gay marriage. My point was that we did all that even with romney. Though, what I meant by having MA run everything, was basically to make my state the one who controlled and made the decisions for the rest of the country, sort of a state/king.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Kind of going off on a tangent, but Korea 1950 FYI.[/QUOTE]

Which happened ONLY because Russia walked out.

Just an inconvient fact you all missed.

But hey, compare 2,000 years of history and wars to two instances when the US went the UN and think you have a precendednt, be my guest.
 
[quote name='Kayden']... You're saying that listening to the collective voice of the civilized world is a bad thing? Oh yea, of course it is. America is ALWAYS right. :roll: Patriotism is one thing, but fellating your country is asinine...[/QUOTE]

This is the same "civilized" world body that sat by through Rwanda and is now tiddling its thumbs over Darfur.

Yeah, they have any credibility in lecturing the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top