 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 6, 2006 at 09:48:49
by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
The question here is; what business was it of anyone but Hillary, his wife? Why was the "Special Prosecutor hounding this President over a sexual encounter with an adult woman? Sure she was a White House Intern, but she was over 21. This didn't impede the President in his daily work of being President, except for the ever grinding mechanizations of the "Special Prosecutor's" office". Still a lie was a lie, and a President can't lie. Bill Clinton was impeached because he had lied to the people. His name forevermore would be connected to those impeachment proceedings, slandering what, up until then, had been one of the most successful Presidency's in our nation's history.
Almost seven years later, George answers a reporter's question. "NO, I'm not going to remove Donald Rumsfeld from office. Don has been and continues to do an excellent job and I have no intention of replacing him". A few days later, the election that takes place in the middle of George W. Bush's second term, shows that the nation is highly displeased with him. It is considered a referendum on his leadership. We are in an immoral war in Iraq that has taken almost 3000 American soldier's lives', and "The Contract With America" has been shown to be a media trick by the GOP as a pedophilic Congressman is caught chasing underage male pages, and The Speaker of The House is thought to have covered it up. The war that was waged on assertions that the President made that they (the Iraqi's) had WMD's had proved to be "lie's" or just "bad guesses", and the President was under fire for not bringing in enough troops to secure the country and disbanding the Iraqi Army and the Police Forces and leaving bunkers of military ordinance where the Iraqi resistor's could get at them with a pair of bolt cutters and make the IED's that were claiming so many American soldiers because of Tommy Frank's rush to Baghdad to get some "Good Press".
It turns out after the election, that George W. Bush, the symbolic leader of the Christian Right and the "Decider" (the name he gave himself), did in fact lie to that reporter during that aforementioned news conference. The reporter, asked him why he had lied to him, and the President, not wishing to lie again so soon, told him that the election was so close, that he didn't want to stir things up, at that moment. Everyone seemed fine with this, in fact hardly any of the usually unforgiving media types brought it up. I guess it's not such a big deal that the President lied to that reporter, and because it was televised he actually lied to the whole nation. One person who got a little hot under the collar was Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "Daily Show". He wondered why the media didn't pick up on Bush's lie.
This President has a habit of lying. He has been lying even before he got to the White House by claiming he was a "Compassionate Conservative". He has no compassion. He has passion, but no compassion. His passion is lining corporate pockets with money. No matter which way you slice it or dice it, the only one's that benefited from this war in Iraq has been the government contractor's who have sucked billions out of contracts that in the most part, were never completed. When you are talking billions of dollars, that's a lot of money; we have spent over $375 billion and he now wants a billion more.
So whose lie was worse? Bill Clinton's lie that he didn't have sex with another consenting adult, or President Bush's lie that he was not going to fire the Secretary of Defense, and did so just a few days later, and then admitted he lied? Is it OK to lie and then "'fess up"? What about the lies about Iraq? We have had many intelligence people tell us he "cherry picked" intelligence reports for damaging news on Iraq that was even then "questionable"? Why can one President tell a lie and another is vilified for it? Why did the MSM (mainstream media) back off making it an issue? Are they afraid of losing their jobs? If that is the case, then they shouldn't be in the job that they are in. If Bill Clinton had lied about that, he would have been crucified for it. Why are there two standards, one for Democrats and another for Republicans?
I believe that George W. Bush should be impeached for lying to the American people, wiretapping American citizen's without going through due process, for the "Rendition" of innocent people, for pushing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that has effectively eliminated Habeas Corpus and for a multitude of other sins against the people. I expect the Democratic House and Senate to make full a full inquiry on these things that I have mentioned. We cannot let this President usurp power by using the "unitary power of the executive branch" and making "signing statements" on any law that he does not intend to follow. This President has made a travesty of The Presidency and has damaged the integrity of The United States of America. This cannot stand.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Stop The White House Lies
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 8 comments |
|
Democrat Victimhood
You have ommitted much about Clinton, in an effort to rewrite his presidency as some sort of liberal sainthood. Of course Bush should be impeached and locked up, immediately. Just for initiating a war of aggression in violation of the UN charter (and consequently the US Constitution Article 6), he could be jailed at any time and tried for war crimes. But, you start off with Monica, so that is what I will address. The reason Clinton was asked about it was it was part of a SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAWSUIT. The context of a boss having nasty sex with his employee was relevant to that trial. That's it. Did governor Clinton harass women? I believe so. There were some pretty solid accusations. But, if you're talking impeachment! William Jefferson Clinton has still MURDERED more Iraqi civilians (mostly children and the elderly) than both Bush's combined! His monstrous and medieval sanctions were biological warfare against a society of 27 million people. His bride of the living dead Secretary of State Madeleine Allbright had the gall to call the deaths of half a million children there "worth it." Put Clinton next to Bush in the dock, and try them all for war crimes. Your Democrat's hands are soaked with the blood of innocents, just as are the Republicans. The sham Coke v. Pepsi charade does not mask the brutal imperialism at work in Washington DC. Nobody innocent there. Nobody. Crimes of the State Blog http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006 at 1:03:41 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: What are you talking about
Don't send me to a site filled with conspiracy theories, show me proof that Clinton and Allbright killed a half million Iraqi kids, I'll read what you've got. by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006 at 3:27:06 PM (0+)
|
|
The Under Oath Thing
My memory may fail me but wasn't Pres. Clinton under oath when he knowingly lied about sex with Monica? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was part of the impeachment proceeding. But as for the corprorate raid on the US Treasury, I honestly don't know where to begin. Since all 3 branchs of Govt. have signed off on it, where is the moral high ground in Govt. from which to begin redressing this lamentable chicanery? by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006 at 2:18:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So What?
Whether it was under oath or not, a lie is a lie, is a lie. This man has lied to so many people that he doesn't know how to seperate the truth from a lie anymore because he just can't seperate the two. by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006 at 3:29:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pox on Both Their Houses
I think you saw a sympathy for something that I certainly don't have. Maybe my disdain for Lying under oath seemed parochial to you somehow. Fact is Pejury is a crime in and of itself. Clearly the CORPORATE raid on our Treasury, that I also mentioned, was spearheaded by the at best misrepresentations of the Bush and company Admin. by "Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Dec 17, 2006 at 9:22:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Chapter 50. Exposing Our Orwellian Fraudster-in-Chief
== Chapter 50. Exposing Our Fraudster-in-Chief == Larry W. Bryant [Author's Note: Recently, from four separate cybersources, I've gained a deeper perspective on why we, the People, must continue to support the growing movement to impeach the Bu$ch-Cheezey junta. Source 1: An article posted Nov. 24, 2006, upon the web site of OpEdNews.com ( http://tinyURL.com/yj4k6m ); written by Jodin Morey of the web site http://impeachforpeace.org . As heralded by its title ("Rebuttal to Arguments Against Impeachment"), this roundup of rejoinders to the standard anti-impeachment sentiment ought to enliven the current debate and to rekindle any impeachment advocate's resolve to press ahead. Here's how it starts: Argument: "If we impeach Bush, we'll get President Cheney!" Rejoinder: "Initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney. In addition, no matter whom we get to replace Bush, we'll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable." Source 2: Another OpEdNews.com article, posted Nov. 25, 2006 ( http://tinyURL.com/tesa7 ); written by Linda Milazzo under the title "'Americans Can't Handle Another Impeachment' Is Republican Propaganda. Don't be Deceived." Indeed, as she non-equivocates here: "If America and Americans are to be resurrected in the eyes of the world, proper investigation of the Bush administration is a democratic mandate. If, as I believe, incontrovertible evidence of Bush and Cheney's high crimes and misdemeanors is uncovered, impeachment proceedings should go forth." Source 3: A Nov. 27, 2006, e-communique issued to the informal "listserv" run by champion "IMPEACH HIM" button-seller Alan McConnell of Silver Spring, Md. ( http://www.waifllc.org ); he's now converted the message to a flyer made available to the public as he sells those morale-boosting buttons far and wide -- under the title "Why Impeaching the Present President Would Be Good for America." An excerpt: "The third reason ripples down the years. It will be a cautionary lesson for future presidents who are tempted to take this country into useless and illegal war, as the Present Occupant has done; or to issue signing statements about what laws he will or will not obey, as the Present Occupant has done. Who knows? -- perhaps future presidents will think twice before indulging in such adventurism." Source 4: A Nov. 27, 2006, "Tomgram" posted by Tom Engelhardt of http://www.tomdispatch.com; in discussing his role in shepherding the recent publication of former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's book "United States v. George W. Bush et al." (Seven Stories Press), Engelhardt quotes from a phone call he had with her at the project's birth: "'I'd like to draft [she said] an indictment of President Bush and his senior aides, and present the case for prewar-intelligence fraud to a grand jury, just as if it were an actual case of mine, using the evidence we already have in the public record.'" In and of itself, de la Vega's j'accuse tome constitutes the premier reason for impaneling one or more pre-impeachment grand juries. Engelhardt's "Tomgram" views it as a "'slam dunk' case for the way we were defrauded into war." For my own part in this discussion, I offer this reason for supporting the impeachment movement: Congress's declaring the formal impeachment process -- targeting, at a minimum, both Bush and Cheney -- would provide a safe, retaliation-free forum for all prospective whistleblowers to come forward with their testimony and various insider-derived documentation. That climate of openness and safety-in-numbers would foster a chain-reaction emergence of what pro-impeachment activist Ray McGovern calls "patriotic truth-tellers (a.k.a. 'leakers')."] SCHMOE [almost day-dreaming as he gazes upon the foamy trail of Rev. Pat Richmanson's new yacht "Angel Wave" as it heads through the Chesapeake Bay toward Annapolis, Md.]: Say, Rev. Pat -- after lunch, how about our swinging by Baltimore's inner harbor on our way back to McNair? RICHMANSON [sipping from a mug of hot apple cider and adjusting his sunglasses]: Sure, Tony. Ain't it just grand to get out of the Oral Orifice and experience the "real world" once again? SCHMOE: Certainly is. Maybe we could make this trip every quarter, for the remainder of our term. How about that, Dick? CHEEZEY: If we didn't have to deal with the newly constituted Kongress, I'd opt for every other month. RICHMANSON: Amen to that. TROVE, BU$CH, AND THE OTHERS [in unison]: Amen. BU$CH: Speakin' of Kongress, there's still some pressure on 'em to proceed with impeachment. For example, that confounded IMPEACH HIM button-sellin' bunch headed by Alan McConnell showed up Dec. 4 for that special forum sponsored at the George Washington University by those radicals in that so-called "World Can't Wait -- Drive out the Bush Regime" ( http://www.worldcantwait.org ). TROVE: Yeah. Ol' Larry W. Bryant was seen pinning one of those IMPEACH HIM buttons on outgoing Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's coat shortly after her talk about our abandonment of New Orleans. And he gave her a copy of the text of the Muskogee Citizens Petition for Grand-Jury Impanelment. Listen: isn't it time to break out our new supply of Polonium-210? If it was good enough for the late Alexander Litvinenko and Enron's Ken Lay, it oughta be good enough for ol' Bryant. What's his favorite appetizer? SCHMOE: From what I understand, he's a hot-dogs-and-beans kinda guy, and he rarely goes grocery-shopping -- so . . .. CHEEZEY [while examining an Italian-made fishing rod]: We've got plenty of time to Polonium-ize Bryant, Pippin, McConnell, et al. Right now, I'm more worried about the impact of de la Vega's traitorous "indictment" of us. Jerry "No Life" Pippin, according to Walbomb's sources, has interviewed her for his Web-cast radio show -- and is looking into Bryant's suggestion that she include Muskogee as part of her book-tour itinerary. If he pulls that off, just imagine how many more signatures might be added to their citizens petition because of that tie-in. SCHMOE: Well, I've got staff working on undoing that tie-in, Dick. They're drafting a Corporate Alert memo right now -- to be sent to the CEOs of Barnes and Noble, Borders Books, Books-a-Million, etc. Here, let's see if they've e-mailed me the draft yet [powering up his laptop]. BU$CH [peering over Schmoe's shoulder]: So, what's the memo gonna demand? SCHMOE: It will remind these companies that, if they dare allow a de la Vega-Pippin appearance blitz upon any of their stores, we'll have no choice but to truncate our special corporate relationship with 'em. Simple as that; they'll get the message, all right. TROVE: And about this matter of petitions: our petition-obsessed Bryant has just created a new one. CHEEZEY: Which seeks what? TROVE: It's titled "An Online Petition to Award the Congressional Gold Medal to Elizabeth de la Vega" ( http://www.PetitionOnline.com/edlvega/petition.html ). And you can guess that the purpose of that award would be to honor her book's contribution to the impeachment movement. What a disgrace to citizenship! Accusing us of committing "the Ultimate Impeachable Offense"! RICHMANSON: They're destined for Hell with this sedition. You can bet on it. And I'm sure that God, in his unwavering support for expanding our great Global Christian Empire, will applaud our efforts to Peelonium-ize our enemies. Amen. TROVE, BU$CH, CHEEZEY, AND SCHMOE: Amen, amen. SCHMOE: I have a footnote for y'all: in her talk at the Dec. 4 GWU forum, World Can't Wait national coordinator Debra Sweet opined that our administration remains "the most dangerous force that has ever existed." If only, for her own sake, she knew HOW "dangerous" -- right, guys? [As the "Angel Wave" nears her reserved berth at the Annapolis marina, our merry band of Christian Soldiers proceeds, single file, to the latrine -- for a final urinary purge before plotting further acts by the "urinary" 'residency.] http://www.bushbusiness.com/impeachment%20news.htm http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gjprobe/petition.html http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nmgrand/petition.html http://www.PetitionOnline.com/arrest/petition.html larryB@jerrypippin.com by LarryWBryant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 58 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006 at 5:07:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Why Dem Congress fails representing and betrays Americans
Blackmail. In a word. Extortion. Coercion. Inaction against Bush proves acting in league and elitist sympathy WITH Bush. And both kinds of labels (D's and R's) against America, seditious, traitors anti- democracy; corrupted absolutely. Why ask Why Democrats hide from taking action, when the answer is both obvious and condemning. Pleading, begging, shaming Democrats to be and act for equal Justice under the law, does not get them to be and act for equal Justice. You can't teach old crooked dogs (Democrats), new tricks. Get new dogs. Until then, stop sending federal tax money paying for war crimes and psychoPentagon. War is over. The world is one. Nationalism is manifesting suicidal destiny. None for me, thanks. by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006 at 7:16:28 PM (0+)
|
|
It appears that you may have attracted some freepers...
First of all, If I recall correctly...I don't believe that Bill Clinton's sanctions blocked medical supplies, food, and other necessities of life. And Saddam still had the resources necessary to purchase those things as needed, but didn't. Perhaps choosing to buy weapons and other things instead. But the point remains, those vital things were not blocked and Saddam had the funds to obtain them. You can't blame Clinton for that. About your second possible freeper: Tim, he knows better, he is just feigning outrage over a "technicality". It's a common and very tired republican spin tactic. by RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments) on Thursday, Dec 7, 2006 at 2:02:54 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
