Rodeo, lets just do this.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by fintstone
If the President had lied...it would be easy to prove. Much as it was with the last President who lied under oath.

I must not be remembering correctly. Can you show where it was proven Clinton lied? Just looking for the same clear concise proof you are asking for. thanks

[Rodeo]

quote:
Originally posted by fintstone
If the President had lied...it would be easy to prove. Much as it was with the last President who lied under oath.

Yea Flint, where did Clinton lie? Com'on show us! Prove it

[nostatic]

I just lied.

[fintstone]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/contempt041399.htm

[Scooter]

That challenge was just too easy Flint.

Maybe the definition of "intentionally false" is not clear?

[Rodeo]

What I Knew Before the Invasion
By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005; B07

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ah, so instead of addressing Fint's very nice link to the article detailing Clinton's "intentionally false" statements Rodeo chooses to cut and paste another partisan article...if you can't win the argument, deflect.

[Scooter]

Score:

Rodeo: 0
Flintstone: llllll....aw forget it, you win.

[speeder]

So basically you guys are still equating lying about getting a hummer w/ starting a war? Just want to make sure I'm on the right page here.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by speeder
So basically you guys are still equating lying about getting a hummer w/ starting a war? Just want to make sure I'm on the right page here.

No. We were hoping you would give us a specific instance (quote) where the President lied and there was some way to even remotely verify that it was true so we could debate the issue. Days later and many, many attempts to obfuscate and change the subject (like in you in this post) and there has not been one. I wonder why?

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Ah, so instead of addressing Fint's very nice link to the article detailing Clinton's "intentionally false" statements Rodeo chooses to cut and paste another partisan article...if you can't win the argument, deflect.

Actually since this thread is about Lendaddy asking about Bush's lies, isn't bringing up Clinton the real, true deflect here (predictible deflect, comes every time)?

[Scooter]

Okay, back on topic; waiting for a legitimate response....

Originally posted by lendaddy
Give me your favorite Bush lie. I'm not being a jerk, I am serious. I have been aweful cynical lately and I admit that, but not here. I am seriously trying to understand your logic. You (and others) speak so matter-of-factly about Bushs "lies" so I just want one that we can hash out. So pick one of the many that you feel is obvious and I will give it an honest appraisal. This is your chance to see just how rational and fair I can be.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by cool_chick
Actually since this thread is about Lendaddy asking about Bush's lies, isn't bringing up Clinton the real, true deflect here (predictible deflect, comes every time)?

Well since none of you has put up an actual LIE, the thread has degraded...

Oh yeah, except for the quote that no one can verify was every said...except that one...

By the way, your hero Murtha even said on Meet the Press that he didn't think the President lied about the war. He said he thought he might have exagerrated the intelligence but didn't knowingly lie.

Guess we just don't know Murtha.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Well since none of you has put up an actual LIE, the thread has degraded...

Oh yeah, except for the quote that no one can verify was every said...except that one...

By the way, your hero Murtha even said on Meet the Press that he didn't think the President lied about the war. He said he thought he might have exagerrated the intelligence but didn't knowingly lie.

Guess we just don't know Murtha.

1. I don't have a "hero." That's your gig.

2. What does Mutha saying today have to do with Lendaddy's request?

3. Why are you getting so mad?

4. Sorry for calling out the true deflection...forgive me?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by cool_chick
1. I don't have a "hero." That's your gig.

2. What does Mutha saying today have to do with Lendaddy's request?

3. Why are you getting so mad?

4. Sorry for calling out the true deflection...forgive me?

1. My gig? Huh? Who is my hero?
2. Um, well since the thread is about Bush lying and Murtha said he doesn't think Bush DID lie, I thought it was relevant.
3. I'm mad? Really? Actually I'm just sitting here having a nice cup of coffee after putting my kids to bed. I am far from mad...
4. Not sure which deflection you are referring to...there are so many on this thread it's hard to keep up.

[CamB]

"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."

Time for a definition of "been to war"? LOL.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I've posted at least 3 verifiable lies. Go back and read. Just because you guys don't want to admit it and would rather denigrate yourselves at the alter of Clinton doesn't mean bush didn't lie.

Please take responsibility for the guy you elected. This continual apology is so old, irresponsible and unpatriotic.

Country before Presidency.

[Rodeo]

Within 1/2 hour of this thread going up, I posted a link to 55 "misreprenstations" made by the prez himself. Others have posted many more, direct quotes for all to see. The daddy did not address a single one, nor did any of the other Bush/Cheney defenders. Not one.

That's why this thread went nowhere (as I predicted on page one).

[oldsam]

Lendaddy asked: "Give me your favorite Bush lie". Nothing was mentioned in the original question about lies leading up to war. I

I posted several examples. Nobody addressed them. This is the easiest one to verify.

In State Of The Union Speech Bush said: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05

Is this Bush quote true or untrue?

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, I'll play. Here is a cut and paste from a union website trying to defend your position (i.e. that Soc Security would not be bankrupt in 2042).

Is Social Security bankrupt?
Not hardly, though you might think so to read some of the propaganda being poured out by the Cato Institute. According to this year's Social Security Trustees Report, the Social Security fund spent less than 75 percent of what they collected in 1999, leaving a surplus of nearly $134 billion for the year. They now have more than $896 billion in their surplus account.

Well then, what is the problem?
The problem is that, according to projections made by the Trustees, the fund actually will begin spending more than it takes in around the year 2015, and the surplus will be depleted in about 2037. After that, the amount collected will only pay about two-thirds of the benefits guaranteed to retirees, survivors, and the disabled. In 1983, a similar shortfall (the fund was completely wiped out that year) caused Congress to raise the payroll tax.

How big is the problem?
If you plan to collect Social Security benefits after 2037, the problem is serious. Fortunately, it is not nearly as big as those pushing privatization make it sound. The projected shortfall for the next 75 years is only 1.89 percent of projected payroll. At worst, the shortfall could be alleviated by a two percent tax. We do not recommend this solution (there are much better ways to make up the deficit). We only offer it to show that saving Social Security will not bankrupt future generations as many articles have claimed.

http://www.boilermakers.org/ss/ssindex1.html

So, even this site that is against privitization concedes that there will have to be an INCREASE IN PAYROLL TAX to prevent Social Security from becoming insolvent around 2037. I believe your original quote said 2042...maybe Bush was being generous.

NEXT?