Articles of Impeachment

[manu1959]

Yes I can.
He told us that Congress had access to the same intelligence regarding Iraq that he did.
This is not true. And you know damn well he knew it wasn't true, unless of course you honestly believe George Bush isn't aware that Congress doesn't get copies of his daily intelligence briefings - which would make him dumber than a stack of bricks.
He also said in April of 2004:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
Now we know that in 2004 he was authorizing wiretaps w/o a court order, so that's another lie.
He also said a wiretap requires a court order. So either he is a) lying or b) willfully breaking the law. Which is it?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html
Anyone who doesn't see these two lies for what they are is seriously brainwashed.

if you are correct. why have the proceedings not commenced? nancy and teddy and barbara and chucky would be all over this if it we factually correct.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Congress is not helpless against the President, and the minority party is not helpless in Congress either. This idea that they had the wool pulled over their eyes is simply disingenuous.

And the statement that they had access to the same intelligence as the President is a LIE.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You would be incorrect. Congress has access to the same classified information the President does.

You would be incorrect, GunnyL. According to Alfred Cumming,
Specialist in Intelligence and National Security,Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, of the Congressional Research Service, while Congress has access to most intelligence, it is not ALL of the same intelligence as the President.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/congress.pdf

"Most" is not "same." But of course, instead of telling the truth and saying Congress has access to "most" of the intelligence he did, he instead lied.

Basically, they have to do their own homework; however, their access is the same as his.

"most" does not equate to "same"

And I really have no idea, besides partisan whining, why you lefties care if he listens in on phone calls between terrorist organizations and suspected collaborators.

If suspected terrorists are truly the only target of his wiretaps, he has no reason not to obtain a warrant, as it can be obtained after the fact and is issued by a special secret court. Its not the terrorists I'm worried about. The entire reason we have a 4th amendment is to protect the innocent. By your same logic we should do away with the 4th amendment entirely since only criminals would need to worry about it - which makes your logic fundamentally unAmerican and unPatriotic.


That isn't what I was talking about, at any rate. I was merely pointing out that he LIED when he said that we were using warrants to get wiretaps whenever we were tracking down the terrorists.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

if you are correct. why have the proceedings not commenced? nancy and teddy and barbara and chucky would be all over this if it we factually correct.

This is clearly an illogical argument. Merely because proceedings do not commence does not change the facts. He said two things which I have listed which were lies and which he knew were lies - if your only argument against the facts is that the impeachment proceedings against the President have not begun in a Republican House then all you have is a weak, worthless argument.

It is clear that you will maintain that the President has not told a lie in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

 

[manu1959]

so file.....go for it....stop your moaning and file....send babs an e-mail.....ffs we ain't going to do it for you ..... you are super smart you should be able to convince someone

 

[manu1959]

This is clearly an illogical argument. Merely because proceedings do not commence does not change the facts. He said two things which I have listed which were lies and which he knew were lies - if your only argument against the facts is that the impeachment proceedings against the President have not begun in a Republican House then all you have is a weak, worthless argument.

It is clear that you will maintain that the President has not told a lie in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

so file then.....you telling me he lied four years ago? still got elected and nobody is doing any thing because....what? why are you all waiting? file....pull the trigger....you are right he lied....you have proof...send it to babs and teddy....file....remember you are smarter than all of us....

by the way .....when you win and W is toast....what is plan to deal with President Cheeny?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

so file then.....you telling me he lied four years ago?

The two lies I mentioned took place in 2004 and 2005. You're not too good with math, are you?


File what? Avatar asked for lies of George Bush that were indisputable lies beyond a resonable doubt.

I provided two of them.



The President is a liar. He lies to the American people.

If you can live with supporting someone as President who will willfully and intentionally lie to you - then that's your problem.

Just do me one favor. Next time I call Bush a liar, don't ask me to prove it - because I already have. He is a liar. And not just a run of the mill liar. He lies about the way in which he is conducting his business as President of the United States. He lies to the people that put him in power. Wilfully, and with full knowledge that he is lying to them. End of story.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The two lies I mentioned took place in 2004 and 2005. You're not too good with math, are you?


File what? Avatar asked for lies of George Bush that were indisputable lies beyond a resonable doubt.

I provided two of them.



The President is a liar. He lies to the American people.

If you can live with supporting someone as President who will willfully and intentionally lie to you - then that's your problem.

Just do me one favor. Next time I call Bush a liar, don't ask me to prove it - because I already have. He is a liar. And not just a run of the mill liar. He lies about the way in which he is conducting his business as President of the United States. He lies to the people that put him in power. Wilfully, and with full knowledge that he is lying to them. End of story.

Hmmm, let me see now. If I recall, there was some president lately who was convicted of perjury,,,yea, perjury and he was disbarred. Hmmmm, who was that??????

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hmmm, let me see now. If I recall, there was some president lately who was convicted of perjury,,,yea, perjury and he was disbarred. Hmmmm, who was that??????

Are you suggesting Presidents who lie should be punished for their actions?

I think that's a wonderful idea. Good thinking.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Are you suggesting Presidents who lie should be punished for their actions?

I think that's a wonderful idea. Good thinking.

I merely stated a fact, I didnt say I support it.

Not to mention:

ALL PERJURY is lies. Not all lies are perjury.

 

[manu1959]

Are you suggesting Presidents who lie should be punished for their actions?

I think that's a wonderful idea. Good thinking.

name one president that has not lied.....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

name one president that has not lied.....

Name one instance in human history when it has been possible to prove a negative.

Not to mention, that's a pretty lame excuse. Unless of course you like your President lying to you. Which wouldn't surprise me because you strike me as the kind of person that is afraid of the truth.