why hasn't GWB been impeached?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ Quote taken from post, originated by me, deleted ]

Pssst. Hey Mr. Density:

[ Different post, one originated by Conjur, deleted ]

You regurgitated conjur's post. It was not your content besides your inane commentary.

Now are you finished looking like a blithering idiot yet? With your track record, that's highly doubtful.

:roll: Squawk and flap, flap and squawk.

I know you hate FACTS, but here they are: I bumped three posts, all containing points you keep dodging. One was Conjur's post; two were mine. The one to which you replied was mine, NOT Conjur's. Oopsie. That makes you 0 for 1001. (And for the record, I see you as a sputtering clown, not a "blithering idiot".)

And your comment proves you haven't read squat in this thread and you're just adhering to a fantasy world, the same one you "Aunties" seem to live in constantly.

And your comments prove you cannot refute the points we raised, not one, so you continue to dodge and duhvert and distort. I guess that's all you BS'ers can do since you haven't a leg to stand on. It's just a flesh wound.

LMAO!!

 

[mc00]

I agree with 90% what you said I dont believe anything I see on tv or newspaper just watch the weather and tech news online.. I wish I could travel to other countrys to witness the real truth because I really dunno know what goes on other country and how do they feel..

One I didn't voted for bush and I am not bush support neither I respect him as human being but my anger toward him is still stand, I feel he got this country into more debt and the war against terrorism could have being handle better or thought out of better and I feel under him my rights are going away because what happend in 9/11 and because he sign the unfair bill called patriot act/ID bill he might be doing out of good intentions to protect us but how sure are we ? are we going to get rights back after all this war is over maybe 50 years ? hell no. please don't say bush is protecting our freedom because have you look at those bills lately? same like the goverment stripping us from alot rights... yes I understand is prevent another terrorist attack.

I'm against war(no I'm not peace dude wears peace t-shirt or god lover I'm normal joe loves U.S constitution/bill of rights), in wars people(soldiers and normal local people) get's kill, what would have happend if IRAQ, other country that hate us would Invade us ? oh no we would hate that very much maybe WWIII ? as my understanding in history what I have read U.S. was only super power after world war II other country didn't like the idea U.S. being only top dog. so U.N was created so could prevent another world war and keep super power country in check(correct me if I'm wrong lol )... I tell you what I wouldn't want my country to be only strong country because we going to be hate very much for it and problably would be everyone target list to get rid of...

bother way I respect everyone else opinion I'm not trying to go against anyone or trying to say your feeling toward bush is worse mistake you made lol

I just don't understand some of your irrationaly hatred for GW. I am not the world's biggest GW supporter but I can't say that WJC was a standout president that is for sure. The same people who don't want to fund the military are the same ones who want us to play world's policemen everywhere.

Why on earth should we play the world's policeman? It is a thankless job and no one appreciates it anyway. Germany, France, Italy and the rest of the EU don't want to help. They ONLY help when it is in their own national interests. Frankly that is what we need to do as well. IF we then have money and time left over then maybe look at some of the other places.

The UN is a worthless piece of crap just in existence to keep dictators in power. No one complains when ANY world POWER doesn't help except when it is US that doesn't help. Where is all the outcry that China isn't spending more money to help or Russia or France or Germany? Why is it the US' responsibility to correct the problems in the Sudan. I didn't want GW for president but I sure as heck didn't want that sell out to the UN Mr. Heinz (John Kerry) to be president either. Why isn't there any backlash agains Russia doing thing unilaterally? You know why? Because Putin doesn't give a rat's a$$ what anyone else thinks. He plays the UN like a violin when it benefits him. Just look at the oil for food scandal. If anyone thinks we need to put our trust in an organization like that seriously needs to delve into what the UN really does.

As for a previous poster's comment about intel being old sometime old intel is all you have. Even Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMDs and did everything he could to prop up that image. Even Mr. Putin's intel said that Saddam was a threat and that he had WMD's even as the bastard Russians continuted to illegally sell weapons and jammers to Saddam. Talk about playing both sides of the isle. Mr. Putin did a great job on that one! But where is all the outcry from the Dems about him or any other world leader. If all you you who irrationally hate or despise GW would look around at other world leaders maybe you would realize that while he isn't a prince he sure isn't the toad Chirac is! No country in the world gives as much money or help to the rest of the world as the US does! Not just to areas that are directly in our national interest either. No other party in the history of the US has worked so hard to destroy the reputation of the US on the world stage as the Dems have done just to try and benefit themselves politically internally. I don't care if the rest of the world wouldn't have voted for GW. They don't elect our president and I sure wouldn't have voted for Chirac or Putin if I lived in their countries.

Some of you folks need to get out and travel and see how the rest of the world really is and not how our media portrays it to be. You tend to believe all the BS they feed you as if it were the holy verse from whatever god you believe in (if you do believe in one). It is not the end of the world that GW is president. Get a grip. I survived 8 years of Clinton, Carter's inept foreign policy, high taxes and absurd interest rates, bumbling Ford even Nixon and Johnson and JFK. The only president I felt truly made a positive difference in the past 40 years was Reagan.

 

[wchou]

WE Live In A Very Confused World, No One Knows What They Are Talking About Nor Do They Know They Are Right? Aren't We All Confused??? But still talks like they know all... What a joke.

Before you guys make sense of anything, where is your proof? Anything to backup what ya said??? None so far, only bickering and assuming whatever you heard on the news.

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: wchou
WE Live In A Very Confused World, No One Knows What They Are Talking About Nor Do They Know They Are Right? Aren't We All Confused??? But still talks like they know all... What a joke.

Before you guys make sense of anything, where is your proof? Anything to backup what ya said??? None so far, only bickering and assuming whatever you heard on the news.

good point...... again who do we believe thats is telling truth? these day you don't know who telling the truth anymore... people claim 9/11 was cause by our own goverment... you can't say the goverment always being truthful when they speak to the public and media you don't know if the story is true or false or if it's true they make it look worser... sometime I ask my self are we really in debt? or U.S really had reason to invade IRAQ is confusing because there so many different story and claim why U.S did does thing like those political group believe in different thing they believe war is good no war is bad war is good bring money to economy so on so on.
so we as normal joe have to make our judgement and sometime is wrong or right... I for one believe we're living in a world of lies and greed and you dont know is being honest or not anymore.. *sigh

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: wchou
WE Live In A Very Confused World, No One Knows What They Are Talking About Nor Do They Know They Are Right? Aren't We All Confused??? But still talks like they know all... What a joke.

Before you guys make sense of anything, where is your proof? Anything to backup what ya said??? None so far, only bickering and assuming whatever you heard on the news.

Displaying all statements of 55 statement(s) found:
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqO...l=1&Speaker=President+George+W%2E+Bush

Downing Street Dossier
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/27/95544/1535

RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: wchou
WE Live In A Very Confused World, No One Knows What They Are Talking About Nor Do They Know They Are Right? Aren't We All Confused??? But still talks like they know all... What a joke.

Before you guys make sense of anything, where is your proof? Anything to backup what ya said??? None so far, only bickering and assuming whatever you heard on the news.

You really can't be serious, can you? The proof is that they never found any vast stockpiles of WMD's. They told us they had them, they told us they knew where they were. They had a 1300 member team looking for them. WHERE ARE THEY??

Oh, that's right, it was "bad" intelligence, right. LOL, yeah sure it was. It was cooked to a crisp, no wonder it was bad. It sure left a "bad" taste in my mouth.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
[ Quote taken from post, originated by me, deleted ]

Pssst. Hey Mr. Density:

[ Different post, one originated by Conjur, deleted ]

You regurgitated conjur's post. It was not your content besides your inane commentary.

Now are you finished looking like a blithering idiot yet? With your track record, that's highly doubtful.

:roll: Squawk and flap, flap and squawk.

I know you hate FACTS, but here they are: I bumped three posts, all containing points you keep dodging. One was Conjur's post; two were mine. The one to which you replied was mine, NOT Conjur's. Oopsie. That makes you 0 for 1001. (And for the record, I see you as a sputtering clown, not a "blithering idiot".)

[/quote]
Oh, so now you admit you regurgitated conjur's post?

Well, there's one of your claims down the tubes in a flash of flames. It's quit a demonstration of how you're so quick to spew crap that's wrong about so many other claims too. You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

And your comment proves you haven't read squat in this thread and you're just adhering to a fantasy world, the same one you "Aunties" seem to live in constantly.

And your comments prove you cannot refute the points we raised, not one, so you continue to dodge and duhvert and distort. I guess that's all you BS'ers can do since you haven't a leg to stand on. It's just a flesh wound.

LMAO!!

[/quote]
Keep laughing. Anyone else who has read this thread and knows your claim is full of hot air and chest-chumping BS and is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

Better check to see if that frog in your pocket is dead yet. :laugh:

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken(choice excerpts)

You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

Everyone...is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

again, if you want to be take seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

 

[Bowfinger]

All that flapping and squawking, and you still haven't addressed my points. Had you a leg to stand on, you would have and could have refuted them with a fraction of the effort you've spent evading them.

I hereby dub thee Sir Chicken, another of the Bush-worshipping Black Knights. "No you didn't. It's just a flesh wound." :roll:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken(choice excerpts)

You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

Everyone...is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

again, if you want to be take seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

A few months ago, in a moment of accidental honesty, Sir Chicken admitted to being a fraud and a hypocrite. That pretty much ended any chance of people taking him seriously (not that there was much risk of that before).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken(choice excerpts)

You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

Everyone...is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

again, if you want to be take seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

A few months ago, in a moment of accidental honesty, Sir Chicken admitted to being a fraud and a hypocrite. That pretty much ended any chance of people taking him seriously (not that there was much risk of that before).

Good lord. You make bricks look smart.

What "points" did you bring up? The "independent investigation" point that conjur has already brought up and I addressed. You even made the comment that"

First, Conjur is right. That was not an independent investigation. Second, to suggest the Senate SCI investigation was comparable to the Whitewater witch hunt is disingenuous, to say the least.

That comment right there proves you have no comprehension skills. I did not compare the "SCI" (sic, hehe) investigation to Whitewater. Someone else brought that up. In fact, that someone else was conjur, iirc.

Your other point was quotes about "pressure," which conjur also brought up first and which I rebutted because the analysts themselves defined what "pressure" meant in the context of their conversations. I also provided direct quotes from the SIC findings to substantiate that. They felt pressure from being asked question after question about whether their findings were correct. It was NOT pressure to change their findings. If you'd have actually read this thread and my responses, as well as some of the details about the SIC you'd know that. But instead you bull ahead cluelessly insisting that none of your points have been addressed and looking like a complete asswipe in the process.

Now I hope you're quite finsished, moron, because you've been finihed in this thread for some time already and yet cluelessly go on spouting crap. If you want to keep up your moronic commentary though, help yourself. I've enjoyed watching you make a complete fool of yourself.

Tata.

 

[wchou]

http://www.whywehatebush.com/

 

[1EZduzit]

TLC, according to your view, you consider your self right. The problem is that it seems to be a very narrow view of the whole situation. You are fond of callin anybody with a differnt view then you, Bush haters. I don't hate Bush per say, I hate him because he is a liar. Can I prove that beyound a shadow of a doubt?? No, but a true, independant investigation with the power to prosecute might be able to.

Just what is it the right is afrad of?? Me thinks they do protest too much. They investigated Clinton, why not Bush. The allegations are so much more serious and yet the right resists. I would think they would welcome the chance to prove Bush's innocence.

Ernest Hemingway:

For a war to be just three conditions are necessary - public authority, just cause, right motive.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
TLC, according to your view, you consider your self right. The problem is that it seems to be a very narrow view of the whole situation. You are fond of callin anybody with a differnt view then your Bush haters. I don't hate Bush per say, I hate him because he is a liar. Can I prove that beyound a shadow of a doubt?? No, but a true, independant investigation with the power to prosecute might be able to.

Just what is it the right is afrad of?? Me thinks they do protest too much.

We already had a bi-partisan investigation intel the intel failure. It found that the intel was firmly believed to be true by those crafting it. An independent investigation is not going to change that fact. The investigation also found that there was no coersion from Bush to change the intel.

The call for an "independent" investigation is a cry-baby tactic by those who insist Bush is a liar because they apparently can't accept the fact that he isn't. In fact, I see plenty of lies coming from the left that they make no apologies for, except to apologize for their own liars (Dan Rather anyone?) so it appears abundantly clear that lies are only important to the left when they come from the right.

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken(choice excerpts)

You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

Everyone...is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

again, if you want to be take seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

A few months ago, in a moment of accidental honesty, Sir Chicken admitted to being a fraud and a hypocrite. That pretty much ended any chance of people taking him seriously (not that there was much risk of that before).

Good lord. You make bricks look smart.

Do you have some sort of an eye-hand coordination problem? Are you PWI (Posting While Intoxicated)? You have a habit of quoting one post while replying to another. That might explain why you seem so confused about who said what.

What "points" did you bring up? The "independent investigation" point that conjur has already brought up and I addressed.

No, you evaded them. That's the problem. The OP asks "Why hasn't GWB been impeached?" One answer offered is that Bush hasn't been subjected to the same kind of aggressive, independent investigation as Clinton. You disputed this, pointing to the "SIC" [sic] as a counter-example. You have never addressed the many examples of how the two investigations are not comparable.

You even made the comment that"

First, Conjur is right. That was not an independent investigation. Second, to suggest the Senate SCI investigation was comparable to the Whitewater witch hunt is disingenuous, to say the least.

That comment right there proves you have no comprehension skills. I did not compare the "SCI" (sic, hehe) investigation to Whitewater.

See above.

By the way, "Senate SCI" is the correct designation for this investigation. It was the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence (from your own link, hehe :roll: ). You wouldn't look so foolish if you'd learn to check your assumption before you attack.

Someone else brought that up. In fact, that someone else was conjur, iirc.

Your other point was quotes about "pressure," which conjur also brought up first and which I rebutted because the analysts themselves defined what "pressure" meant in the context of their conversations. I also provided direct quotes from the SIC findings to substantiate that.

And I provided quotes from minority members of the Committee refuting those claims. That's one of the many examples of why the Committee's partisan findings cannot be given the same credibility as an independent investigation.

They felt pressure from being asked question after question about whether their findings were correct. It was NOT pressure to change their findings. If you'd have actually read this thread and my responses, as well as some of the details about the SIC you'd know that.

See above.

But instead you bull ahead cluelessly insisting that none of your points have been addressed and looking like a complete asswipe in the process.

ROFL. More empty name-calling from the boy who attacks others as "belligerent fvckwits."

Now I hope you're quite finsished, moron, because you've been finihed in this thread for some time already and yet cluelessly go on spouting crap. If you want to keep up your moronic commentary though, help yourself. I've enjoyed watching you make a complete fool of yourself.

Tata.

I'm comfortable I've demonstrated your flapping and squawking was, in fact, not responsive to the points I raised. If you are truly interested in discussion, I suggest you go back to my original posts and reply directly, in context, to the points as I raised them. Your tactic of addressing a multi-point post by attacking your straw man is dishonest and unproductive.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
TLC, according to your view, you consider your self right. The problem is that it seems to be a very narrow view of the whole situation. You are fond of callin anybody with a differnt view then your Bush haters. I don't hate Bush per say, I hate him because he is a liar. Can I prove that beyound a shadow of a doubt?? No, but a true, independant investigation with the power to prosecute might be able to.

Just what is it the right is afrad of?? Me thinks they do protest too much.

We already had a bi-partisan investigation intel the intel failure. It found that the intel was firmly believed to be true by those crafting it. An independent investigation is not going to change that fact. The investigation also found that there was no coersion from Bush to change the intel.

The call for an "independent" investigation is a cry-baby tactic by those who insist Bush is a liar because they apparently can't accept the fact that he isn't. In fact, I see plenty of lies coming from the left that they make no apologies for, except to apologize for their own liars (Dan Rather anyone?) so it appears abundantly clear that lies are only important to the left when they come from the right.

Hypocrisy anyone?

Bipartisian isn't the same as independant. If they could investigate Clinton for 6 years on BS, then the much more serious allegations against Bush and company should also rate an Independant investigation. To not do it is the hypocrisy. If the intelligence was cooked, then somebody should pay the price.

I'm tired of all the corruption and think that the only way to stop it (or at least slow it down to acceptable levels) is with independant investigations.

Dan Rather isn't a public servant. GWB is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken(choice excerpts)

You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

Everyone...is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

again, if you want to be take seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

A few months ago, in a moment of accidental honesty, Sir Chicken admitted to being a fraud and a hypocrite. That pretty much ended any chance of people taking him seriously (not that there was much risk of that before).

Good lord. You make bricks look smart.

Do you have some sort of an eye-hand coordination problem? Are you PWI (Posting While Intoxicated)? You have a habit of quoting one post while replying to another. That might explain why you seem so confused about who said what.

No. It's just your lack of comprehension. Your penchant for repetitively stating I am a fraud by distorting and apparently missing by a mile what I said in the post from months back makes a brick look smart.

What "points" did you bring up? The "independent investigation" point that conjur has already brought up and I addressed.

No, you evaded them. That's the problem. The OP asks "Why hasn't GWB been impeached?" One answer offered is that Bush hasn't been subjected to the same kind of aggressive, independent investigation as Clinton. You disputed this, pointing to the "SIC" [sic] as a counter-example. You have never addressed the many examples of how the two investigations are not comparable.

"Not comparable?" WTF are you talking about? I never claimed they were comparable. Are you erecting a new strawman?

You even made the comment that"

First, Conjur is right. That was not an independent investigation. Second, to suggest the Senate SCI investigation was comparable to the Whitewater witch hunt is disingenuous, to say the least.

That comment right there proves you have no comprehension skills. I did not compare the "SCI" (sic, hehe) investigation to Whitewater.

See above.[/quote]
See what above?

By the way, "Senate SCI" is the correct designation for this investigation. It was the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence (from your own link, hehe :roll: ). You wouldn't look so foolish if you'd learn to check your assumption before you attack.

Duh. Did you notice I used "sic," not "SIC." How about Spelling is Correct? I was acknowledging it was correct. It was a pun. But never mind. I doubt you have the capacity to comprehend something like a pun. :roll:

Someone else brought that up. In fact, that someone else was conjur, iirc.

Your other point was quotes about "pressure," which conjur also brought up first and which I rebutted because the analysts themselves defined what "pressure" meant in the context of their conversations. I also provided direct quotes from the SIC findings to substantiate that.

And I provided quotes from minority members of the Committee refuting those claims. That's one of the many examples of why the Committee's partisan findings cannot be given the same credibility as an independent investigation.

I provided quotes from the WMD report that said the analysts themselves that specifically said no pressure to change their findings was ever applied. Funny how you'll whine and bitch about any findings of the Republicans yet you'll take the statements from Democrats, statements that don't jibe with two seperate investigations into Iraq intel, as gospel. Here let me refresh you about what was actually stated:

The Commission has found no evidence of ?politicization? of the Intelligence
Community?s assessments concerning Iraq?s reported WMD programs. No
analytical judgments were changed in response to political pressure to reach a
particular conclusion.831 The Commission has investigated this issue closely,
querying in detail those analysts involved in formulating pre-war judgments
about Iraq?s WMD programs.

These analysts universally assert that in no instance did political pressure
cause them to change any of their analytical judgments. Indeed, these analysts
reiterated their strong belief in the validity and soundness of their prewar
judgments at the time they were made.832 As a former Assistant Secretary
of State for Intelligence and Research put it, ?policymakers never once
applied any pressure on coming up with the ?right? answer on Iraq.?833
Moreover, the CIA?s Ombudsman for Politicization conducted a formal
inquiry in November 2003 into the possibility of ?politicization? with
respect to assessments of Iraqi WMD. That inquiry involved the (perceived)
delay in CIA?s reassessment of its position on WMD in Iraq. The Ombudsman
also found no evidence, based on numerous confidential interviews
with the analysts involved, that political pressure had caused any analyst to
change any judgments.834
The Commission also found no evidence of ?politicization? even under the
broader definition used by the CIA?s Ombudsman for Politicization, which
is not limited solely to the case in which a policymaker applies overt pressure
on an analyst to change an assessment. The definition adopted by the
CIA is broader, and includes any ?unprofessional manipulation of information
and judgments? by intelligence officers to please what those officers
perceive to be policymakers? preferences.835 But the definition retains the
idea that circumstantial pressure to produce analysis quickly is not politicization?
there must be some skewing of analytical judgments, either deliberately
or unintentionally.

"These analysts UNIVERSALLY assert..." None of them claimed to have been coerced to alter their findings or "politicize" their intel.

If the Democrats that you quoted had evidence to the contrary to back up their allegations, then they should have included those or provide SOMETHING besides their own partisan opinion on the subject with no backup whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing to validate their claims though. Nor do YOU have anything to validate their claims.

They felt pressure from being asked question after question about whether their findings were correct. It was NOT pressure to change their findings. If you'd have actually read this thread and my responses, as well as some of the details about the SIC you'd know that.

See above.

Again you refuse to acknowledge what the term "pressure" alluded to. It's stated in the WMD report what "pressure" means. Read it and get a clue.

But instead you bull ahead cluelessly insisting that none of your points have been addressed and looking like a complete asswipe in the process.

ROFL. More empty name-calling from the boy who attacks others as "belligerent fvckwits."

Ah yes. The pot speaks yet again about the kettle.

Now I hope you're quite finsished, moron, because you've been finihed in this thread for some time already and yet cluelessly go on spouting crap. If you want to keep up your moronic commentary though, help yourself. I've enjoyed watching you make a complete fool of yourself.

Tata.

I'm comfortable I've demonstrated your flapping and squawking was, in fact, not responsive to the points I raised. If you are truly interested in discussion, I suggest you go back to my original posts and reply directly, in context, to the points as I raised them. Your tactic of addressing a multi-point post by attacking your straw man is dishonest and unproductive.

You simply ignore those points you don't want to deal with. The call for an independent investigation is a strawman. If there was anything to actually investigate indepenently the Democrats would, Republican majority or not, but they aren't doing that and aren't pushing the issue at all. That canonly mean there's nothing there and yet another investigation would fall flat on its face just as the other two did.

You keep pretending "pressure" means something else when it's stated clearly how the word is used and keep spewing on cluelessly that it means what you obviously and wrongly think it does -That pressure was applied to change the intel. It doesn't mean that, but keep going on cluelessly.

So if you're comfortable, fine with me. You're comfortably wrong though.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
TLC, according to your view, you consider your self right. The problem is that it seems to be a very narrow view of the whole situation. You are fond of callin anybody with a differnt view then your Bush haters. I don't hate Bush per say, I hate him because he is a liar. Can I prove that beyound a shadow of a doubt?? No, but a true, independant investigation with the power to prosecute might be able to.

Just what is it the right is afrad of?? Me thinks they do protest too much.

We already had a bi-partisan investigation intel the intel failure. It found that the intel was firmly believed to be true by those crafting it. An independent investigation is not going to change that fact. The investigation also found that there was no coersion from Bush to change the intel.

The call for an "independent" investigation is a cry-baby tactic by those who insist Bush is a liar because they apparently can't accept the fact that he isn't. In fact, I see plenty of lies coming from the left that they make no apologies for, except to apologize for their own liars (Dan Rather anyone?) so it appears abundantly clear that lies are only important to the left when they come from the right.

Hypocrisy anyone?

Bipartisian isn't the same as independant. If they could investigate Clinton for 6 years on BS, then the much more serious allegations against Bush and company should also rate an Independant investigation. To not do it is the hypocrisy. If the intelligence was cooked, then somebody should pay the price.

I'm tired of all the corruption and think that the only way to stop it (or at least slow it down to acceptable levels) is with independant investigations.

Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.

As far as the "independent' investigation, that's still a strawman. You know damn well that what you want is an investigation that will corrobarate your personal opinion and nothing more. You have no interest in an "independent" investigation. You want an investigation that will find Bush guilty according to your allegations and would accept nothing less than that finding.

Dan Rather isn't a public servant. GWB is.

Dan Rather was a public figure...WAS being the operative word. His zeal for attacking Bush, like the zeal of so many on the left, got him in trouble and ruined him. Apparently the lefties haven't learned a damn thing from Rather though.

 

[ntdz]

Because his party controls both houses of congress.

Because he has done nothing worthy of being impeached.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
TLC, according to your view, you consider your self right. The problem is that it seems to be a very narrow view of the whole situation. You are fond of callin anybody with a differnt view then your Bush haters. I don't hate Bush per say, I hate him because he is a liar. Can I prove that beyound a shadow of a doubt?? No, but a true, independant investigation with the power to prosecute might be able to.

Just what is it the right is afrad of?? Me thinks they do protest too much.

We already had a bi-partisan investigation intel the intel failure. It found that the intel was firmly believed to be true by those crafting it. An independent investigation is not going to change that fact. The investigation also found that there was no coersion from Bush to change the intel.

The call for an "independent" investigation is a cry-baby tactic by those who insist Bush is a liar because they apparently can't accept the fact that he isn't. In fact, I see plenty of lies coming from the left that they make no apologies for, except to apologize for their own liars (Dan Rather anyone?) so it appears abundantly clear that lies are only important to the left when they come from the right.

Hypocrisy anyone?

Bipartisian isn't the same as independant. If they could investigate Clinton for 6 years on BS, then the much more serious allegations against Bush and company should also rate an Independant investigation. To not do it is the hypocrisy. If the intelligence was cooked, then somebody should pay the price.

I'm tired of all the corruption and think that the only way to stop it (or at least slow it down to acceptable levels) is with independant investigations.

Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.

As far as the "independent' investigation, that's still a strawman. You know damn well that what you want is an investigation that will corrobarate your personal opinion and nothing more. You have no interest in an "independent" investigation. You want an investigation that will find Bush guilty according to your allegations and would accept nothing less than that finding.

Dan Rather isn't a public servant. GWB is.

Dan Rather was a public figure...WAS being the operative word. His zeal for attacking Bush, like the zeal of so many on the left, got him in trouble and ruined him. Apparently the lefties haven't learned a damn thing from Rather though.

Oh, come on. Dan Rather wasn't an elected public offical. If you insist on making the comparison of Bush and Rather, just remember, Rather lost his job.

The "lefties" don't need lessons from you, thank you very much. In case you hadn't noticed, we pay our own bills and have our own opinions. Just becasue we think Bush should be investigated (INDEPENDANTLY) is no reason to start calling people names, etc. Eveyone has the right to their opinion.

You can't prove Bush didn't lie, now can you. What makes you think your opinion is any more valid then a lefties??

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Because his party controls both houses of congress.

Because he has done nothing worthy of being impeached.

Because he is the best liar this side of Moscow?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.

Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.

Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.

Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.

Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.

Here's a timeline to tell a bit more of the story that you glossed over:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

Clinton was investigated on the affair and two potential issues:

1) Did he give Lewinsky preferential treatment in trade for her silence?

2) Did he encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath?

Did those things happen? Of course they did. In retrospect it's obvious. His lying in the deposition was ultimately either icing on the cake or a dumb move, depending on your partisan pov.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken(choice excerpts)

You really should work on that reading comprehension. Maybe try reading the thread real, real slowly and you'll see where I shot conjur down as well? Then again, I doubt you'd acknowledge it and instead will just go on making a jolly old fool of yourself.

Everyone...is laughing AT you, not with you, too.

again, if you want to be take seriously I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

A few months ago, in a moment of accidental honesty, Sir Chicken admitted to being a fraud and a hypocrite. That pretty much ended any chance of people taking him seriously (not that there was much risk of that before).

Good lord. You make bricks look smart.

What "points" did you bring up? The "independent investigation" point that conjur has already brought up and I addressed. You even made the comment that"

First, Conjur is right. That was not an independent investigation. Second, to suggest the Senate SCI investigation was comparable to the Whitewater witch hunt is disingenuous, to say the least.

That comment right there proves you have no comprehension skills. I did not compare the "SCI" (sic, hehe) investigation to Whitewater. Someone else brought that up. In fact, that someone else was conjur, iirc.

Your other point was quotes about "pressure," which conjur also brought up first and which I rebutted because the analysts themselves defined what "pressure" meant in the context of their conversations. I also provided direct quotes from the SIC findings to substantiate that. They felt pressure from being asked question after question about whether their findings were correct. It was NOT pressure to change their findings. If you'd have actually read this thread and my responses, as well as some of the details about the SIC you'd know that. But instead you bull ahead cluelessly insisting that none of your points have been addressed and looking like a complete asswipe in the process.

Now I hope you're quite finsished, moron, because you've been finihed in this thread for some time already and yet cluelessly go on spouting crap. If you want to keep up your moronic commentary though, help yourself. I've enjoyed watching you make a complete fool of yourself.

Tata.

stop with the personal attacks.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Clinton was investigated on something that actually happened and there was prof of. It was not BS. It was his own stupidity and thinking with his cawk that got him into trouble. I liked Clinton and still do but I sure don't feel sorry for what he brought upon himself. If Bush was discovered to be having sex in the oval office with an intern the left would have a field day with that.

Clinton was NOT investigated on something that actually happened. He was investigated on WhiteWater and was charged with nothing. He was investigated in TravelGate and was charged with nothing. His wife was investigated on her futures trading, but was charged with nothing.

Then, when they are about to wrap up the whole thing, Linda Tripp shows up and says she can prove that BillyBoy is having an affair. Note that he hasn't committed a crime yet. So they tape the phone conversation between BillyBoy and Monica and then feed that info to the lawyers working for Paula Jones. They add a question or two about it to his deposition and he lies. Now he has commited a crime, but the investigations of him and his family by the special procesutors didn't invastigate what he hid, because he hadn't even done it yet.

Here's a timeline to tell a bit more of the story that you glossed over:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/

Clinton was investigated on the affair and two potential issues:

1) Did he give Lewinsky preferential treatment in trade for her silence?

2) Did he encourage Lewinsky to lie under oath?

Did those things happen? Of course they did. In retrospect it's obvious. His lying in the deposition was ultimately either icing on the cake or a dumb move, depending on your partisan pov.

Ha, an old fart like you should know that once people reach a certain age, they don't really care too much about sexual indiscretions. It wasn't really anybody eles's business and if it wasn't for independant investigator Ken Starr it never would have hit the light of day.

That is the real reason why all the righties are scared to death of an independant investigation of Bush. You never know what might turn up, LOL!!