Sex or War. How do you prefer you liars?
- Thread starter jlabsher
- Start date
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Here's the reply I sent...
Mr. Magolis,
I am writing you in regards to your September 28th commentary in the Toronto Sun titled "No Wonder America Has So Many Enemies." Like most journalists, you try to oversimplify and/or omit facts that do not support your case, and I think this is a disservice to your readers and serious editorialists regardless of their nation of origin.
First, President Clinton was not impeached for lying about having sex. That's as common an act in the US as I'm sure it is in Canada. He was impeached for providing false evidence/testimony before a grand jury investigation. And I would remind you that said lying was committed to avoid prosecution for a similar crime, it was not testimony that was of no consequence to the liar himself. We call that perjury here in the states, and that is a felony offense. There was also ample evidence that he actively encouraged others to perjure themselves as well. President Bush made one, solitary, statement, which the original source of said information still claims is true. If we held you to the same standard that you hold President Bush, we would be labeling you as a liar for saying that President Clinton was impeached for "lying about sex." Are you a liar? Even worse, there is plenty of proof in regards to what President Clinton did and the basis for the impeachment, so your lies are even more nefarious.
You also state that "... Bush finally admitted Iraq was not, as most Americans were misled into believing, behind the 9/11 attacks." I challenge you to show me one time that anyone in the Bush administration ever said that they thought Saddam Hussein/Iraqis were behind the 9/11 attacks, or used said charge to justify toppling the regime. The only statements that I am aware of deal with Iraq dealing with Al Queda on various levels, nothing about them being responsible for the attack. You are correct in saying that some (although not most) Americans were misled into believing Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, but they were misled by speculation, rumors, and outright lies generated by the media and alleged experts and "inside sources." Neither Bush nor his administration misled the American people on this, so until you can show me where anyone at the White House made that connection, I am forced to label you as a liar again.
Lastly, you write "America's most precious and proudest asset, its moral reputation, has been gravely damaged by the Bush White House." You're not being completely honest again. It was not just the "Bush White House" that was behind the war. It was the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and about three quarters of the US population. Yes, you can show polls today from the US and other countries that show a decreasing amount of people still support the efforts in Iraq, or who still think President Bush is doing a good job, but show me a single poll that shows anywhere near a majority of people feeling that Saddam Hussein should be returned to power? They were against his ouster, but they are also against his being returned to power? Sounds to me like the issue isn't what's best for Iraq but how many people don't like President Bush or are jealous of the United States.
Was our moral reputation damaged by "our" going to war with Iraq? Speaking as an American, I don't think so. You Canadians and other foreigners have the luxury of sitting back and shooting barbs like yours at the United States because you have little or no liability for what happens in the world. You allow your militaries to crumble into disrepair because you know the US of A will come to your defense if you are ever in need of assistance. The US of A pumps out more foreign aid money to the world than the rest of the world's countries combined. Without America there would be no United Nations, NATO, SEATO, or any other major world organization. There would only be Nazi parties, Fascists, terrorists, and Communists out to dominate weaker countries like Canada were it not for the continuing efforts of the United States. I don't remember seeing Canada ever raising it's hand to take the lead in remedying any World despair. Canadians, like most other nations, are always willing to offer just enough of a token effort to look like they are participating and to take a major amount of credit for the efforts of others, but when it comes to standing up making a moral stand, the Canadians are habitually in what we call "The Peanut Gallery."
I think that before you go scurrying about worrying about the US's moral reputation, you should first take a hard look in the mirror at Canada's moral reputation.
Mr. Magolis,
I am writing you in regards to your September 28th commentary in the Toronto Sun titled "No Wonder America Has So Many Enemies." Like most journalists, you try to oversimplify and/or omit facts that do not support your case, and I think this is a disservice to your readers and serious editorialists regardless of their nation of origin.
First, President Clinton was not impeached for lying about having sex. That's as common an act in the US as I'm sure it is in Canada. He was impeached for providing false evidence/testimony before a grand jury investigation. And I would remind you that said lying was committed to avoid prosecution for a similar crime, it was not testimony that was of no consequence to the liar himself. We call that perjury here in the states, and that is a felony offense. There was also ample evidence that he actively encouraged others to perjure themselves as well. President Bush made one, solitary, statement, which the original source of said information still claims is true. If we held you to the same standard that you hold President Bush, we would be labeling you as a liar for saying that President Clinton was impeached for "lying about sex." Are you a liar? Even worse, there is plenty of proof in regards to what President Clinton did and the basis for the impeachment, so your lies are even more nefarious.
You also state that "... Bush finally admitted Iraq was not, as most Americans were misled into believing, behind the 9/11 attacks." I challenge you to show me one time that anyone in the Bush administration ever said that they thought Saddam Hussein/Iraqis were behind the 9/11 attacks, or used said charge to justify toppling the regime. The only statements that I am aware of deal with Iraq dealing with Al Queda on various levels, nothing about them being responsible for the attack. You are correct in saying that some (although not most) Americans were misled into believing Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, but they were misled by speculation, rumors, and outright lies generated by the media and alleged experts and "inside sources." Neither Bush nor his administration misled the American people on this, so until you can show me where anyone at the White House made that connection, I am forced to label you as a liar again.
Lastly, you write "America's most precious and proudest asset, its moral reputation, has been gravely damaged by the Bush White House." You're not being completely honest again. It was not just the "Bush White House" that was behind the war. It was the White House, the Senate, the Congress, and about three quarters of the US population. Yes, you can show polls today from the US and other countries that show a decreasing amount of people still support the efforts in Iraq, or who still think President Bush is doing a good job, but show me a single poll that shows anywhere near a majority of people feeling that Saddam Hussein should be returned to power? They were against his ouster, but they are also against his being returned to power? Sounds to me like the issue isn't what's best for Iraq but how many people don't like President Bush or are jealous of the United States.
Was our moral reputation damaged by "our" going to war with Iraq? Speaking as an American, I don't think so. You Canadians and other foreigners have the luxury of sitting back and shooting barbs like yours at the United States because you have little or no liability for what happens in the world. You allow your militaries to crumble into disrepair because you know the US of A will come to your defense if you are ever in need of assistance. The US of A pumps out more foreign aid money to the world than the rest of the world's countries combined. Without America there would be no United Nations, NATO, SEATO, or any other major world organization. There would only be Nazi parties, Fascists, terrorists, and Communists out to dominate weaker countries like Canada were it not for the continuing efforts of the United States. I don't remember seeing Canada ever raising it's hand to take the lead in remedying any World despair. Canadians, like most other nations, are always willing to offer just enough of a token effort to look like they are participating and to take a major amount of credit for the efforts of others, but when it comes to standing up making a moral stand, the Canadians are habitually in what we call "The Peanut Gallery."
I think that before you go scurrying about worrying about the US's moral reputation, you should first take a hard look in the mirror at Canada's moral reputation.
At some point, someone has to call these people on their lies. It's like this CIA business - the lie gets told, the press runs with it, and pretty soon it becomes fact in the public's mind.
It would be a shame for Bush to lose the 2004 election because the Democrats and the media are spreading lies about him.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Vrai, the lies unfortunately exist on both sides of the aisle. The point the columnist was trying to make is that lying to send your nation to war is a little different than lying about your personal sex life. No matter what Bruzilla or any other of the sea lawyers on this board say, the whole Clinton incident was about that.
Of course, when you GOPs decry the dems dragging "your" prez thru the mud, you seem to forget that hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars were spent by the GOP to investigate everything from Clintons wee-wee, to his brother's coke habit, glad the dems don't go looking at any of W's relatives.
Oh, and don't worry, Bush WILL lose the 2004 election.
Of course, when you GOPs decry the dems dragging "your" prez thru the mud, you seem to forget that hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars were spent by the GOP to investigate everything from Clintons wee-wee, to his brother's coke habit, glad the dems don't go looking at any of W's relatives.
Oh, and don't worry, Bush WILL lose the 2004 election.
One more time:
Clinton lied to protect himself against a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones. The investigators were trying to establish that Clinton had a history of sexually harrassing his subordinates. That's how Lewinsky's name got brought into it - someone told the investigators to check her out. That someone was Linda Tripp.
So Clinton didn't lie about his sex life - he lied to keep the Jones case from going to trial. He lied to keep his azz out of trouble.
Now you can say that ALL criminals lie to Grand Juries to keep themselves out of trouble and you'd probably be right. But we should neither expect nor condone that in our President.
Do you understand it now or shall I say it again?
Clinton's brother was a criminal who ran with the Columbian cartels. How do you think the Columbian drug lord got his famous White House photo op? He was a buddy of Roger Clinton's.
If that were the case, it would be a heinous act. But so far the only lies have come out of the press. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bush lied about anything. Just because an op-ed writer says so doesn't make it true.
Do you have a brain block that prevents you from retaining history or do you just choose not to pay attention to current events because it conflicts with your preconceived notions?
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Jblasher... not a Democrat... please excuse me until I stop laughing.
10 minutes pass...
Ok, I'm back.
Sorry jblasher, but only a Democrat could believe that the impeachment was about sex. Clinton was going to be put on trial for sexually harassing an employee, and he told the grand jury that he had never had sexual relations with any of his employees. You don't need to be a sea lawyer to know that someone who engages in sexual activities with his employees is very likely to approach his employees to engage is said activities, which is why he was asked the question. He knew that, amongst getting in hot water with Hillary and suffering embarassment, that admitting he was having sex with an employee would be damaging to his case, so he lied about it. When I went to Sea Lawyer school they had a name for that... perjury. It doesn't matter if you're lying about misusing a cigar on an intern or saying you never stole the stolen car you were caught driving in... the offense is the same.
I don't think that Bush is going to get drug through the mud. Clinton dug an awfully muddy standard when it comes to bad behavior. At worst, Bush might get a little dust on his shoes that he'll need to brush off. The Liberal media are hyping up every negative story they can come up with to make Bush look bad, but it's not playing with the folks who really make the difference (the people in the Red zone.) It was like the bogus LA Times poll showing how Bustamante was kicking Arnold's ass out in CA, but then the much more reliable Gallup poll came out and showed how that wasn't happening.
There's a reason why FNC's ratings are increasing in double-digit numbers while the other network news organizations's ratings are dropping like flies. More and more people are waking up to the truth of what's going on and I hope more and more people start calling reporters on their lies.
By the way... I haven't heard anything back from that blasted Canadian.
10 minutes pass...
Ok, I'm back.
Sorry jblasher, but only a Democrat could believe that the impeachment was about sex. Clinton was going to be put on trial for sexually harassing an employee, and he told the grand jury that he had never had sexual relations with any of his employees. You don't need to be a sea lawyer to know that someone who engages in sexual activities with his employees is very likely to approach his employees to engage is said activities, which is why he was asked the question. He knew that, amongst getting in hot water with Hillary and suffering embarassment, that admitting he was having sex with an employee would be damaging to his case, so he lied about it. When I went to Sea Lawyer school they had a name for that... perjury. It doesn't matter if you're lying about misusing a cigar on an intern or saying you never stole the stolen car you were caught driving in... the offense is the same.
I don't think that Bush is going to get drug through the mud. Clinton dug an awfully muddy standard when it comes to bad behavior. At worst, Bush might get a little dust on his shoes that he'll need to brush off. The Liberal media are hyping up every negative story they can come up with to make Bush look bad, but it's not playing with the folks who really make the difference (the people in the Red zone.) It was like the bogus LA Times poll showing how Bustamante was kicking Arnold's ass out in CA, but then the much more reliable Gallup poll came out and showed how that wasn't happening.
There's a reason why FNC's ratings are increasing in double-digit numbers while the other network news organizations's ratings are dropping like flies. More and more people are waking up to the truth of what's going on and I hope more and more people start calling reporters on their lies.
By the way... I haven't heard anything back from that blasted Canadian.
Add a zero in there, somewhere?
A number made needlessly high by the endless stonewalling by the White House, tightlipped Friends of Bill and lackeys who fled the country. And a lot of people DID go to jail, who deserved it. Most of the big players didn't.
Compare Bush's cooperation to the Clinton's "I didn't do it" BS and the DNA testing of a stained dress. JEEZ. He knew he did it - why not just come "clean"? Nope. Waste taxpayer's dollars for an investigation he knew the answer to all along.
Ha - on Hardball last night, Terry McAuliffe was all over the *LIES* that Gallup was publishing about the race. Is that the way it works? He then went on with the laughable "proof" that since every major CA newspaper was endorsing Bustamante, that just "proves" the public is for him and not Arnold.
*HUH*?
All of the liberal rags in CA are for Bustamante - and that proves the public is, also? So if Arnold actually WINS, will that be proof - at last - that those papers are simply blatantly liberal, and do not speak for the people.
I keep forgetting that liberals think that every liberal position is the "voice of the people". Jeez, guys. Get a grip on reality.
Doesn't matter. I am sure when Arnold wins, there will be some reason why the Republicans "stole" it and disenfranchised the voters. There'll be no evidence, only tallied votes, but somehow when he wins it will "prove" the Republicans are evil.
Hey did you catch Arianna Huffington's about face last night? For the last several weeks, she was very clear about one thing - Gray Davis HAS TO GO. Now that she has no chance of winning and Arnold will likely win, she is NOT campaigning for Bustamante - she is campaigning AGAINST THE RECALL. Yeah, *right*.
jlabsher
Sorry about that chief.
Excuse me while I whip this dead horse, ahhhh more satisfying than trying to get the people on this board to listen to a different viewpoint. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh taking calls from people who disagree with him. Scared you'll have to consider a different viewpoint than the pablum on the airwaves.
OK lie about sex, we all agree Billy did that in one shape or another. As an aside, do you remember whitewater, the chinese connection, ad nauseum, the GOP was dragging Bill through the mud from day 1, and nothing stuck.
Lie about WMD, Bush told the world they were there, we had pictures & everything, still we can't find any trace now. Either he lied or had realllllly bad intel. (Remember the Nigerian connection, Powell's speech to the U.N. with the 8x10 glossy photos with circles on the front and letters on the back telling what the circles were, the state of the nation address, his talk to the UN last week?)
Saddam's connections to al-Quada, hmmm seems I read that Chaney is still doing that even though the Whitehouse has officially said there is no connection and 70% of the population believe it is true (maybe watching Fox?).
I won't even mention Donald (Mr. Personality) Rumsfeld and his box of laughs.
All in all, since all politicians are liars, I'd rather have one lying about his wee-wee than one lying to carry out his own personal vendetta against Saddam, and pi$$ing off the rest of the world in the process. Then going and begging the UN for help after we thumbed our nose at them 6 months ago. His approval rating continues to drop, couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
OK lie about sex, we all agree Billy did that in one shape or another. As an aside, do you remember whitewater, the chinese connection, ad nauseum, the GOP was dragging Bill through the mud from day 1, and nothing stuck.
Lie about WMD, Bush told the world they were there, we had pictures & everything, still we can't find any trace now. Either he lied or had realllllly bad intel. (Remember the Nigerian connection, Powell's speech to the U.N. with the 8x10 glossy photos with circles on the front and letters on the back telling what the circles were, the state of the nation address, his talk to the UN last week?)
Saddam's connections to al-Quada, hmmm seems I read that Chaney is still doing that even though the Whitehouse has officially said there is no connection and 70% of the population believe it is true (maybe watching Fox?).
I won't even mention Donald (Mr. Personality) Rumsfeld and his box of laughs.
All in all, since all politicians are liars, I'd rather have one lying about his wee-wee than one lying to carry out his own personal vendetta against Saddam, and pi$$ing off the rest of the world in the process. Then going and begging the UN for help after we thumbed our nose at them 6 months ago. His approval rating continues to drop, couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Hello, darling...*she purrs*
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=739
You're so cute I'd like to pinch your little nose!
Totally used to people disagreeing with me - work in DC, work for someone who despises Bush, and most of my co-workers as well. Some of them have even said they hate Ashcroft too, but don't know why - just that (exact quote) they're "supposed to".
Let's just say the opposite is also true - no likelihood you'll ever change your mind either.
I wouldn't say nothing *stuck*. He got impeached. Admittedly it was like getting Capone over tax evasion. And a lot of folks went to jail. A lot of ones who should have gone to jail skipped town. And about half the country knows he DID this ####. It all started on day one because it began before his election. Of course, the Dems did the same to Bush - leaking, a week before the election, a 25-year-old DUI on him. Not the same thing mind you as fraud and sexual harassment.
Yup. Like from Joseph Wilson himself, who said last October that Saddam HAD bio and chem WMD's, and was working very hard to aggressively build a nuclear program.
No - he has them. HAD them, has them. We know this because the UN actually destroyed stockpiles of them by the ton. Saddam tossed these guys out - and then we're supposed to believe he did NOTHING?
Did you mean, Niger? And not Nigeria?
Yes, well 70% of the population doesn't get intel briefings about meetings in Prague. I think *CHENEY* is probably right.
Typical liberal duck and run. Insinuate, but don't back up with facts. Coulter just loves intellectuals like you.
--- in court, before a grand jury, committing perjury which is a felony - and for which several federal judges got removed from the bench - hey, next time you're in divorce court, just lie a few times about YOUR wee-wee and see if it doesn't land your butt in jail ----
--- the rest of the world being defined as "France", "Russia", "China", "Germany" - you know, our reliable friends who normally sing our praises any other day of the week ---- for taking out a bloodhtirsty dictator they were all making money from, all while BREAKING UN rules regarding trade ---
--- all while graciously allowing these mugwump do-nothings to actually participate, since they've been so adamant about doing so --- the same twits who didn't help us the last time - oh yeah - the French - they did send the carrier, the DeGaulle - but with no PLANES aboard, in the last war --- these guys DEFINE the word useless. We're allowing them to participate. Hell we should just leave the UN, tell it to leave New York, and see if the other members will actually PAY to keep it there.
(Actually, I'm all for a major re-alignment of the Security Council - why is France there, at all? Why *isn't* Japan, or India?)
His "approval rating" is irrelevant to the issue, if we're talking what is right, and what isn't - because approval ratings obviously meant nothing to Democrats when they were *HIGH* - but - if you must know - the third year of a first term always takes a dip in the fall. Nixon and Reagan had them too, and both were re-elected in the biggest landslides in history.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Sorry jblasher, but I think you and the Canadian are the only ones on this string that said Clinton lied about sex. I think the rest of us are saying that he lied about having a relationship with an employee in order to avoid prosecution for sexual harassment (laws that I might add which were so heartily supported and endorsed by you Dems.)
I do so love how you guys who were so willing to give the UN all the time in the world to look for WMD want to throw in the towell on inspections after 4-5 months. Do you guys even realize how your credibility is fading away...........
I do so love how you guys who were so willing to give the UN all the time in the world to look for WMD want to throw in the towell on inspections after 4-5 months. Do you guys even realize how your credibility is fading away...........