People need to stop hating on U.S. Citezens

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The Clinton "debacle" wasn't over him lying about his personal life. It was about him lying under oath, right?

Yes, and what does that have to do with Bush? Xmarksthespot had made it seem that Clinton was impeached over having an affair (sexual reasons), he wasn't. It was due to him lying under oath.

My emphasis on the sexual affair is to stress the fact that he lied about something both personal and relatively trivial. Perjury charged over saying he didn't have sex with someone? Pft.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My emphasis on the sexual affair is to stress the fact that he lied about something both personal and relatively trivial.

Though I do agree with you, lying under oath isn't trivial, no matter the subject.

One can easily argue that Bush's conduct during his Presidential tenure invalidates his Oath of Office as a lie.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
One can easily argue that Bush's conduct during his Presidential tenure invalidates his Oath of Office as a lie.

Try it, you'll find pinning something on the guy much harder than you think.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
One can easily argue that Bush's conduct during his Presidential tenure invalidates his Oath of Office as a lie.

'Invalidates his Oath of Office as a lie'? That means you think it's not a lie.

Tee-hee...Funny ol' English.

Hmm interesting sort of like inflammable and flammable. The intention was clear enough I'd hope.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, and what does that have to do with Bush? Xmarksthespot had made it seem that Clinton was impeached over having an affair (sexual reasons), he wasn't. It was due to him lying under oath.

Because that was a major point of his 2000 campaign. Bush said he would restore honour and integrity to teh white house. Neither of which he has done. But I guess people thinkhe has, since he only ****s his wife.

I guess ****ing everyone else is a much more acceptable offense.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Because that was a major point of his 2000 campaign. Bush said he would restore honour and integrity to teh white house. Neither of which he has done. But I guess people thinkhe has, since he only ****s his wife.

I guess ****ing everyone else is a much more acceptable offense.

Do you really think it was an accident that the camera happened to catch George grabbing Laura's ass in 2000? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.

But still, the fact remains that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for a sexual affair.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you really think it was an accident that the camera happened to catch George grabbing Laura's ass in 2000? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.

But still, the fact remains that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for a sexual affair.

Why was the investigation started in the first place?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Why was the investigation started in the first place?

If memory serves, misconduct in the White House. But having said that, the impeachment trial was for lying under oath and not the sexual act(s).

Originally posted by Robtard
If memory serves, misconduct in the White House. But having said that, the impeachment trial was for lying under oath and not the sexual act(s).

Nope. It all started over Paula Jones.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Nope. It all started over Paula Jones.

She had claimed that Clinton was using the Oval Office for his sexual affairs correct? Or in other words, misconduct.

Originally posted by Robtard
She had claimed that Clinton was using the Oval Office for his sexual affairs correct? i.e. misconduct.

Nope. She was talking about her allegations during his term as Governor. No misconduct in teh white house so far.

The investigation was started over sex, but the impeachment was over Clinton lying under oath about it and that is the point.

{edit}
My bad, I was thinking Paula Jones was the woman Lewinski confided in, I forgot that womans name and correct, the Jones scandal did lead to the Lewinski outting.

Originally posted by Robtard
The investigation was started over sex, but the impeachment was over Clinton lying under oath about it and that is the point.

Nope. The Impeachment proceedings started over Lweinsky lying. Not Clinton. The first hint of the question of lying was in teh Jones investigation.....by Kenneth Starr. On top of addmitting to teh Lewinsky relationship behind closed doors.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Nope. The Impeachment proceedings started over Lweinsky lying. Not Clinton. The first hint of the question of lying was in teh Jones investigation.....by Kenneth Starr. On top of addmitting to teh Lewinsky relationship behind closed doors.

In the end though, Clinton was impeached for saying(lying) "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" among other things while under oath and not for the actual act(s) of sex; oral of otherwise. That is the point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Can you prove it though? There lays the problem...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

He later admitted Iraq had no connection whatsoever to the attacks on 9/11 in this speech. Speed up to 1:12 in the video.
The dialogue went like this.

Reporter: What did Iraq have to do with that?
Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?
Reporter:The attacks on the World Trade Center?
Bush: Nothing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

He did lie.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Bush said in a letter to Congress, and I quote, "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html

He later admitted Iraq had no connection whatsoever to the attacks on 9/11 in this speech. Speed up to 1:12 in the video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

He did lie.

Bush's loophole here would be, Iraq was/is a haven/breeding ground for Al Qaida and other terrorist groups among other things.

Originally posted by Robtard
In the end though, Clinton was impeached for saying(lying) "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" among other things while under oath and not for the actual act(s) of sex; oral of otherwise. That is the point.

No, the articles of impeachment cited by those on the judiciary commitee that brought them forward never cited him lying in teh Lewinsky case. They cited thousands of pages of documentation that started with Paula Jones and ended with Monica Lewinsky. However, teh the impeachment charges started with an accusation by the commitee over his tesitmony in the Jones case. Again....nothing that happened in the oval office. And....again....nothing he did in teh oval office. If you want to cite the findings of the commitee, then you should cite the charges of rape...not of lying under oath.

On the flip side of all that, should I list the MULTIPLE incidents of Bush lying while in office? Or cheney? Or Rumsfeld? Or should I just cite the ones where Bush lied under oath? However, since the Republican party has controlled both houses and the white house for the last six years resulting in Bush never having been sworn in, should I only cite the ones where Bush has lied while in office, enjoying the invulnerablity provided by the legislative branch?

Or should we just discuss how the american president isn't obligated to tell teh truth to the American people...about how he or she runs the government? (As opposed to who they ****?)