Conservative Republicans are such paragons of virtue and truth

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
You wanna take a crack at the Iran-Contra question and what was the ultimate end result of it all? You seriously think that there is no evidence to link Bubba to those murders if someone, anyone was allowed to investigate them without fear of death?

Yeah I guess that would be a new strategy of the right, but its old hat for the left.

the ultimate end result of it? more strife in latin america? more resentment out of iran? what is it you're looking for? or is this the attempt at using the 'ends justifying the means' argument?

as far as linking clinton to any of the murders, you can't seriously believe that the GOP would be all over these allegations combing any lead whatsoever if there was any real possibility of linking him to it, do you?

If you are even considering the possibility that any republican is backing off for fear of being killed by the vast left wing clinton conspiracy then have I got a tin foil hat to sell to you.

another question, why is it that all of the convictions and indictments from iran/contra had to be thrown out on technicalities or said persons were pardoned before even going to trial? would it be so that there would be no physical evidence had to be presented that might possibly lead higher up the chain?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
Yeah i'd also like to see an example of that.

since the death of president reagan there have been quite a few media excerpts and political presentations about how closely aligned bush is to reagan when it concerns policy, moral character, and convictions. are you denying that?

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
After everything I've just read, I find it odd that not one person has refuted any of the points that nycflasher made.

Maybe it's just that nobody cares? There exists online, unlike many other forums of communication a point of diminishing returns. I believe that point has been crossed, mentally, but those 'in the know'. We (Right-Wing/Moderate Republicans) can only beat Leftists/Fence-Rider Democrats over the head just so long with 'absolute truth' before we give up. As a conservative republican, you should know this.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
since the death of president reagan there have been quite a few media excerpts and political presentations about how closely aligned bush is to reagan when it concerns policy, moral character, and convictions. are you denying that?

But according to the left, they cannot be compared. I guess you didn't get the talking points memo.

You just got smoked by your own arguments.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the ultimate end result of it? more strife in latin america? more resentment out of iran? what is it you're looking for? or is this the attempt at using the 'ends justifying the means' argument?

as far as linking clinton to any of the murders, you can't seriously believe that the GOP would be all over these allegations combing any lead whatsoever if there was any real possibility of linking him to it, do you?

If you are even considering the possibility that any republican is backing off for fear of being killed by the vast left wing clinton conspiracy then have I got a tin foil hat to sell to you.

another question, why is it that all of the convictions and indictments from iran/contra had to be thrown out on technicalities or said persons were pardoned before even going to trial? would it be so that there would be no physical evidence had to be presented that might possibly lead higher up the chain?

DK, the word for today is hostages. Say it with me H-O-S-T-A-G-E-S. Remember arms for hostages? Remember Terry Anderson?(his is the only name I can think of off the top of my head) Where are these hostages now? Thats correct, walking on American soil. So in this case the ends did justify the means, or am I to assume that a bullshit funding law trumps American lives?

DK look at that list of murders connected to Clinton very carefully, how many people were murdered just investigating or with knowledge of a Clinton felony? Yes they were "officially" ruled "suicide" on some of them but when does one go hmmmm there is something fishy here?

I'm not exactly sure as to why investigations have been curtailed, maybe Bubba wields a big axe(pun intended) in Arkansas. I suggest to you that you watch a documentary on Vince Foster and his suicide and see how vital and damaging info was surpressed by secret service and park police agents in the aftermath if you believe that Bubba has no blood on his hands.

Hell Bubba is a relatively smart guy and i'm sure has insulated himself from these things but so did Sam Giancana and Carlos Gambino but they still ordered the hits just the same.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by -=d=-
Maybe it's just that nobody cares? There exists online, unlike many other forums of communication a point of diminishing returns. I believe that point has been crossed, mentally, but those 'in the know'. We (Right-Wing/Moderate Republicans) can only beat Leftists/Fence-Rider Democrats over the head just so long with 'absolute truth' before we give up. As a conservative republican, you should know this.

pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor after that crushing blow. :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

DK. You're not a liberal. Give it up. It's an intellectually untenable position. It's a house of lies, built on shifting sands, on a planet with no consistent orbit.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
But according to the left, they cannot be compared. I guess you didn't get the talking points memo.

You just got smoked by your own arguments.

don't try to blow smoke up my A$$. thats the only smoke I see around here.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
DK, the word for today is hostages. Say it with me H-O-S-T-A-G-E-S. Remember arms for hostages? Remember Terry Anderson?(his is the only name I can think of off the top of my head) Where are these hostages now? Thats correct, walking on American soil. So in this case the ends did justify the means, or am I to assume that a bullshit funding law trumps American lives?

DK look at that list of murders connected to Clinton very carefully, how many people were murdered just investigating or with knowledge of a Clinton felony? Yes they were "officially" ruled "suicide" on some of them but when does one go hmmmm there is something fishy here?

I'm not exactly sure as to why investigations have been curtailed, maybe Bubba wields a big axe(pun intended) in Arkansas. I suggest to you that you watch a documentary on Vince Foster and his suicide and see how vital and damaging info was surpressed by secret service and park police agents in the aftermath if you believe that Bubba has no blood on his hands.

Hell Bubba is a relatively smart guy and i'm sure has insulated himself from these things but so did Sam Giancana and Carlos Gambino but they still ordered the hits just the same.

OCA, this all sounds so eerily familiar to me. Seems there was a time when a group of people tried to point out mysterious deaths, somewhat questionable links to high ranking individuals, and allegations of a broad conspiracy to hold on to government power and these were met with the 'conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat wearing, kool aid drinking regalia. I believe the time period was 1963, 64, maybe 65?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
since the death of president reagan there have been quite a few media excerpts and political presentations about how closely aligned bush is to reagan when it concerns policy, moral character, and convictions. are you denying that?

While I don't believe that Bush can ever become the "great communicator" like Reagan they do share 1 common trait, A HUGE PAIR OF FUCKING BALLS! They both did what they thought was right despite polls and despite all the naysaying.

A famous movie quote:

"private joker is silly and ignorant but he's got guts and sometimes guts is enough"

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
don't try to blow smoke up my A$$. thats the only smoke I see around here.

TYpically the expression "blow smoke up my ass" refers to flattery. WHat do you mean?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
OCA, this all sounds so eerily familiar to me. Seems there was a time when a group of people tried to point out mysterious deaths, somewhat questionable links to high ranking individuals, and allegations of a broad conspiracy to hold on to government power and these were met with the 'conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat wearing, kool aid drinking regalia. I believe the time period was 1963, 64, maybe 65?

Ok don't agree but I see your point.

How about arms for hostages? Whattta ya say about that?

Wow a thought did occur, well more of a question. Do you believe that Oswald was the lone gunmen on that day despite all the logic and evidence to the contrary?

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
After everything I've just read, I find it odd that not one person has refuted any of the points that nycflasher made.

Attempts to refute these arguments are pointless. Many are valid indictments, many are specious constructs designed merely to flesh out the author's point.

Investigate any administration you like and you will find this type of "corruption". Kennedy and Johnson, in my opinion, are by far the most corrupt administrations in the last 50 years. Kennedy's escapades made Clinton look like a monk. Kennedy damn near started WWIII, which makes the Iran-Contra issue pale by comparison. Johnson got us mired ever deeper in RVN and attempted to micro-manage the war from the Oval Office. He profiteered from the war through his large holdings in Pacific Architects and Engineers Corp, a private contractor holding numerous service contracts in Viet Nam.

But I'm not going to engage in a stone throwing contest because the fact is that both parties live in very fragile glass houses. Rather than finger-pointing at a dead former president, perhaps a better discussion would be how "we the people" can get control of our government again.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Attempts to refute these arguments are pointless. Many are valid indictments, many are specious constructs designed merely to flesh out the author's point.

But I'm not going to engage in a stone throwing contest because the fact is that both parties live in very fragile glass houses. Rather than finger-pointing at a dead former president, perhaps a better discussion would be how "we the people" can get control of our government again.

I could SWEAR thats what I've been trying to do. If only others would TEAR DOWN THAT WALL with me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
Ok don't agree but I see your point.

How about arms for hostages? Whattta ya say about that?

Wow a thought did occur, well more of a question. Do you believe that Oswald was the lone gunmen on that day despite all the logic and evidence to the contrary?

arms for hostages. well its been US policy to never negotiate with terrorists, right? I believe thats exactly what was done with this situation. we sold heavy arms to a hostile nation in exchange for hostages. Some people think thats a good trade, some people don't. But isn't the issue about breaking the law? If not, then it should be.

As for oswald being the lone gunmen.....I don't believe he was a gunmen at all. the word 'patsy' comes to mind, despite your version of 'logic and evidence', theres plenty of logic and evidence that also points to the contrary, as well as the house assassination committees report on the conspiracy.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
arms for hostages. well its been US policy to never negotiate with terrorists, right? I believe thats exactly what was done with this situation. we sold heavy arms to a hostile nation in exchange for hostages. Some people think thats a good trade, some people don't. But isn't the issue about breaking the law? If not, then it should be.

As for oswald being the lone gunmen.....I don't believe he was a gunmen at all. the word 'patsy' comes to mind, despite your version of 'logic and evidence', theres plenty of logic and evidence that also points to the contrary, as well as the house assassination committees report on the conspiracy.

So I see you are a law above lives person in this case that's good to know.

Well then if we agree that he didn't do it, and most people agree with us, who then did do it? And Besides the found rifle most of the other evidence against Oswald and the lone gunman theory is pretty flimsy, don't ya think? I believe the government headed by "LBJ" covered this deal up using Oswald as the scapegoat.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
So I see you are a law above lives person in this case that's good to know.

the main point of this is we have to choose one or the other. we can't keep 'flip floppin' or else we should be ready to defend a flimsy argument of not doing anything where one or two lives is concerned because of cost. I, personally, can't see that stance as defendable for then we're tasked with defining how many bodies is the line drawn at.

Well then if we agree that he didn't do it, and most people agree with us, who then did do it? And Besides the found rifle most of the other evidence against Oswald and the lone gunman theory is pretty flimsy, don't ya think? I believe the government headed by "LBJ" covered this deal up using Oswald as the scapegoat.

no investigation was ever allowed to go far enough to determine who might be culpable. There are plenty of theories but no avenue of investigation that wasn't shut down by the DoJ or just plain not pursued.

It might be that 'LBJ' and his government covered it up, for there was clearly some interference with the law and investigation afterwards. As long as people continue to go 'pooh pooh' to any alternative theory other than oswald as the 'lone nut' shooter, we'll never know the truth until its so far back in history that nobody will really care anymore.

 

[007]

If you call the "SECOND PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY A GOOD MAN", then your judgement leaves much to be desired....


http://www.anncoulter.org/specials/today2.htm


The New York Times, December 20, 1998, p. A1, col. 6

CLINTON IMPEACHED

_____

HE FACES A SENATE TRIAL, 2D IN HISTORY; VOWS TO DO JOB TILL TERM'S 'LAST HOUR'

By ALISON MITCHELL

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice today by a divided House of Representatives, which recommended virtually along party lines that the Senate remove the nation's 42d President from office.

A few hours after the vote, Mr. Clinton, surrounded by Democrats, walked onto the South Lawn of the White House, his wife, Hillary, on his arm, to pre-empt calls for his resignation. The man who in better days had debated where he would stand in the pantheon of American Presidents said
he would stay in office and vowed "to go on from here to rise above the rancor, to overcome the pain and division, to be a repairer of the breach." Later, Mr. Clinton called off the bombing in Iraq, declaring the mission accomplished. Mr. Clinton became only the second President in history to be impeached, in a stunning day that also brought the resignation of the incoming Speaker of the House, Robert L. Livingston.

At 1:22 P.M., the House of Representatives approved, 228 to 206, the first article of impeachment, accusing Mr. Clinton of perjury for misleading a Federal grand jury last Aug. 17 about the nature of his relationship with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. Roll call, page 36.

In the noisy House chamber, a lone Republican applauded. Five Republicans crossed party lines to vote against impeachment. Five Democrats broke with their party to support it.

The margin was enough to forestall charges that the President's fate might have been different if the vote had been delayed to the 106th Congress, which will have five more Democrats.

A second article of impeachment, charging Mr. Clinton with obstruction of justice, passed on a narrower vote of 221 to 212. It accused him of inducing others to lie in order to conceal his affair with Ms. Lewinsky. This time 12 Republicans voted no, while 5 Democrats voted yes.

"The President of the United States has committed a serious transgression," said Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader. "Among other things, he took an oath to God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then he failed to do so, not once, but several times." To ignore this, he said, is to "undermine the rule of law." Excerpts from the debate, pages 35-36.

Two more charges against Mr. Clinton were defeated. An article accusing the President of perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit was rejected, 229 to 205, with 28 Republicans breaking ranks.

And the House overwhelmingly rejected, 285 to 148, an accusation of abuse of power stemming from Mr. Clinton's legalistic answers to 81 questions put to him by the House Judiciary Committee. Eighty-one Republicans defected from their party. Only one Democrat deserted his.

The Senate would conduct only the second impeachment trial of a President in the 209-year history of the Republic. Mr. Clinton will be the only elected President put on trial. Andrew Johnson, impeached and acquitted by one vote in 1868, had been elected Vice President and succeeded to the White House on Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865.

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, announced just after the House vote that senators "will be prepared to fulfill their Constitutional obligations."

Mr. Lott said, "There are steps that precede the beginning of an impeachment trial. Once the Senate is organized as an impeachment proceeding, there will be pleadings and motions that come before the taking of evidence. That makes it difficult to determine at this time when an actual trial will begin."

The House acted on a crisp pre-Christmas Saturday when American politics seemed to be descending into the very cannibalism that Speaker Newt Gingrich had warned of when he was toppled a month ago.

Hours before Mr. Clinton was impeached for his efforts to cover up his affair with Ms. Lewinsky, Mr. Livingston, who had been chosen to succeed Mr. Gingrich, shocked the House by announcing he would leave Congress because of revelations of his own adulterous affairs.

Still, it was Mr. Livingston today who called for Mr. Clinton's resignation from the House floor. Charging that Mr. Clinton had undermined the rule of law and damaged the nation, Mr. Livingston said, "I say that you have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created. You, sir, may resign your post."

As some Democrats shouted back, "You resign," the Louisiana Republican said, "I was prepared to lead our narrow majority as Speaker and I believe I had it in me to do a fine job. But I cannot do that job or be the kind of leader that I would like to be under current circumstances. So I must set the example that I hope President Clinton will follow."

With a sex scandal now consuming one of their own, the House's impeachment debate turned more than ever into a discourse on sin and morality in politics.

Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority whip, who had helped make Mr. Livingston the Speaker-designate and has been one of the fiercest critics of Mr. Clinton, choked back tears as he praised Mr. Livingston. He said his friend "understood what this debate was all
about."

"It was about honor and decency and integrity and the truth," Mr. DeLay said, his voice breaking, "everything that we honor in this country. It was also a debate about relativism versus absolute truth." He charged that the President's Democratic defenders would lower the standards of
society.

Equally passionate, Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the House minority leader, said that men were imperfect, and he asked Mr. Livingston not to resign, for a moment drawing a bipartisan standing ovation.

"Our founding fathers created a system of government of men, not of angels," Mr. Gephardt said, his face reddening with emotion as he spoke. "No one standing in this House today can pass a puritanical test of purity that some are demanding that our elected leaders take. If we demand that mere mortals live up to this standard, we will see our seats of government lay empty and we will see the best, most able people unfairly cast out of public service."

When he finished he walked slowly up the Democratic side of the aisle, Democrats applauding him and hugging him as he moved along. The Republicans remained fixed in their seats.

Today's votes were the penultimate step in the most serious conflict between Congress and a President since Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment and certain conviction on Aug. 9, 1974.

But while that case spun out from a 1972 break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex, this began with a murky land deal in Arkansas in 1978. Through the efforts of Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel, under the law enacted in the wake of Watergate, the investigation spread to examine Mr. Clinton's affair with an intern.

Mr. Clinton, in a finger-wagging performance last January at the White House, told the nation he did not have sexual relations with "that woman," Ms. Lewinsky. He denied sexual relations with her in a
deposition in the sexual harassement case brought against him by Paula Corbin Jones.

Only in August, after it became known that Ms. Lewinsky had preserved a blue dress that provided evidence of their affair, did Mr. Clinton tell the nation and a grand jury that he had had an "inappropriate relationship" with her.

Republicans today took great pains to distinguish Mr. Clinton's case from Mr. Livingston's revelations that "on occasion I strayed from my marriage."

Representative Henry J. Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who himself saw a past affair come to light as he presided over the House's nine-week impeachment inquiry, said: "Infidelity, adultery is not a public act, it's a private act, and the Government, the Congress, has no business intruding into private acts."

But he said that Mr. Clinton had become a Commander in Chief who by lying in legal forums "trivializes, ignores, shreds, minimizes the sanctity" of his oath of office. Representative Nancy L. Johnson of Connecticut said "there can be no justice without the truth."

Democrats argued back that the President's actions were wrong and deserved censure but did not rise to the level of impeachment. Representative David E. Bonior of Michigan, the House minority whip, said Republicans were trying to "hijack an election and hound the President out of office."

Moments before the impeachment votes, Democrats tried to bring to the floor their own proposal to censure Mr. Clinton. But after some debate, their motion was held to be not germane to impeachment and ruled out of order by Representative Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican whom Speaker Gingrich named to preside over the impeachment proceedings.

The Democrats appealed the ruling, expecting to lose because such appeals are considered a challenge to the right of the majority party to run the House. Their motion failed, 230 to 204. Two Republicans, Constance A. Morella of Maryland and Peter T. King of Long Island, broke with precedent and crossed party lines to vote with the Democrats.

As their motion failed, the Democrats briefly marched out of the House chamber in protest. But they returned to vote on the four articles of impeachment.

For one year the Lewinsky scandal has preoccupied the capital despite an immense disconnection with public opinion. Since the scandal became public last January, polls have shown the public opposed impeachment and wanted the inquiry brought to an end. Even on Friday night, after a 13-hour debate, a CBS News Poll of 548 people showed only 38 percent wanted their representative to vote for impeachment; 58 percent wanted a no vote.

The conflict now enters uncharted seas. The Nixon resignation cut the matter short, and the Andrew Johnson trial occurred more than 100 years ago, in a different America, one without nuclear weapons or cable television or public opinion polls.

Despite Mr. Lott's recent assurances that he will move ahead, some wonder whether the Senate may yet flinch from a trial because of the popular will. But Republicans have steadfastly ignored the polls all year.

Representative J. C. Watts of Oklahoma, the newly elected chairman of the House Republican conference, said in debate today, "What's popular isn't always right. You say polls are against this. Polls measure changing feelings, not steadfast principle. Polls would have rejected the Ten Commandments. Polls would have embraced slavery and ridiculed women's rights.

"You say we must draw this to a close," Mr. Watts continued, "I say we must draw a line between right and wrong, not with a tiny fine line of an executive fountain pen, but with the big fat lead of a No. 2 pencil. And we must do it so every kid in America can see it. The point is not whether the President can prevail, but whether truth can prevail."

Yet, for all of the Democrats' charges of excessive partisanship today, enough Republicans did pick and choose among articles of impeachment to send only two of the four that had come out of the House Judiciary Committee on to the Senate.

A number of Republicans said they did not think a perjury charge in Ms. Jones's civil case warranted impeachment, particularly since Mr. Clinton's deposition had been held by a judge to be immaterial. Many of them also looked dimly at impeaching the President for abuse of power -- a term taken from the proceedings against Mr. Nixon in 1974 -- simply because his answers to 81 questions from the Judiciary Committee were legalistic and evasive.

Representative David Hobson, Republican of Ohio, said he supported impeachment of the President for lying to a grand jury but not in the Jones case. "Even if it's true, I worry whether it rises to the same threshold for impeachment," he said. "I didn't want to pile on."

 

[OCA]

So then would you have been cool with some of those guys who were held over there and I can't remember the exact number but it was close to 40, would you have been cool with some of them dying in captivity or maybe possibly being held there still today all because we once said we would not negotiate with terrorists not being able to see into the future? IMO this was a situation where the law was a hinderance, it was a political witch hunt.

As for the assassination you are correct the DOJ and to a point LBJ nixed any in depth investigations into alternative theories. My personal theory is the defense industry had him whacked since he was going to pull the advisors and troops out of Vietnam. I can give credence to the anti-Castro theory but I discount the mafia theory and Giancana's grudge against Jack for Marilyn and Bobby for stabbing Giancana in the back and going after the mafia after they helped Kennedy get elected by delivering Illinois to him since at the time they owned Chicago politics only because I just don't believe the mafia would chance bringing as much heat down upon them as clipping POTUS might bring. Although then I wonder what in the hell was Jack Ruby a known mob associate doing whacking Oswald on T.V.! Hell I don't know maybe they all tie into together.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
So then would you have been cool with some of those guys who were held over there and I can't remember the exact number but it was close to 40, would you have been cool with some of them dying in captivity or maybe possibly being held there still today all because we once said we would not negotiate with terrorists not being able to see into the future? IMO this was a situation where the law was a hinderance, it was a political witch hunt.

would I have been cool with it? absolutely not, but again the issue is upholding the law. Thats the presidents job, to execute the laws. The law was a hindrance but what it should not have been broken, it most certainly should not have been covered up, and it most certainly shouldn't have been an issue that needed people to lie to congress and the american people about it. My feelings would have been that if the situation were laid out to the people, they would have been for doing exactly what reagan did, then fucking the iranian government afterwards, thats just my opinion though.

It is also a bit hypocritical to praise one president for breaking a law that allowed heavy arms to be sold to a hostile nation and turn right around and castigate another for breaking a law trying to hide his personal indiscretions. In either case, it shouldn't have been excused and protected politically either.

As for the assassination you are correct the DOJ and to a point LBJ nixed any in depth investigations into alternative theories. My personal theory is the defense industry had him whacked since he was going to pull the advisors and troops out of Vietnam. I can give credence to the anti-Castro theory but I discount the mafia theory and Giancana's grudge against Jack for Marilyn and Bobby for stabbing Giancana in the back and going after the mafia after they helped Kennedy get elected by delivering Illinois to him since at the time they owned Chicago politics only because I just don't believe the mafia would chance bringing as much heat down upon them as clipping POTUS might bring. Although then I wonder what in the hell was Jack Ruby a known mob associate doing whacking Oswald on T.V.! Hell I don't know maybe they all tie into together.

I tend to discount the mafia angle as well, but i think that the CIA had alot to do with it also, since they had a huge financial stake in vietnam.