BS: Demand that the President tell the truth

Subject: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: outfidel
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 08:48 PM

"[L]et the President answer the interrogatories I proposed, as before mentioned, or some other similar ones. Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. . . . But if he can not or will not do this, -- if on any pretense or no pretense he shall refuse or omit it -- then I shall be fully convinced of what I more than suspect already -- that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him."

Congressman Abraham Lincoln Calls President Polk to Account (1848)

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: outfidel
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:13 PM

16 Questions for President Bush

Petition demanding that President Bush answer the questions

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:31 PM

problem is, I suspect he IS already telling the 'truth' as he understands it. This is the most dangerous situation. Some of his handlers know it is lies, but Bush is able to deceive himself about what he hears.

Nixon KNEW he was lying, Reagan didn't seem to.

I wonder if Dean would always tell the truth if he were in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Sorcha
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 09:47 PM

Oh yea..........just how are we going to 'force' him?

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:17 PM

Thank you Bill!!!! For a long while I felt Bush was just a lying sack of shit but I have come to believe that he really is sincere in his belief in his own bullshit. On many issues he can see no other point of view and ardently believes that those opposing him are wrong, even disloyal and treasonous, simply because he is absolutely convinced of his own "righteousness."

If you think of his statements and decisions in that way, they begin to make a modicum of sense or at least follow a logical pattern although the basic premises are, for many of us, flawed...and dangerously so. This makes him far more terrifying than a Nixon or Johnson and puts the U.S. position in the world in a frightening location......a Superpower led by a less than able mind who truly believes he is Superman with a destiny.

Talk about the "terrible swift sword"........but now only Dubya's truth marches on...and at a horrendous price.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:28 PM

I think you have the rights of it. It probably bewilders him when he hears that some think he is a lying bastard, when he has it glossed to a high shine that he is just doing what is right -- after a Rube Goldberg-esque series of alterations, justifications and rationalization. His mind mus whizz like a clockwork danse macabre.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:34 PM

Well, Spawzer, not much to add to your post other than to put the period at the end of the sentence: Bush *IS* the idiot that mnay of us suspected.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Janie
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:34 PM

I 3rd (or 4th) the notion that Bush really thinks he is following "the path of righteousness". Ditto Mr. bin Laden, (not that Bush is that extreme,) but it does make his decision-making process pretty closed.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bert
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:38 PM

Ha ha ha ha hee hee hee ho ho ho, rotfl. Demand that the President tell the truth, hee hee, Oh my, my sides hurt

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,An observer
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 10:45 PM

You're joking, right? The guy has already decided that killing other people is the way to peace, and his domestic economic work sucks besides. So, make him tell the truth? He is so in love with his own garbage (and so are all the rest on the Hill) that there will never be hope for his administration.

    The thing that ticks me off the most is that he masquerades as a conservative Christian (which I am) and then goes and murders people for his cause, while allowing the legal slaughter of unborn babies. Tell the truth to us? He doesn't even have the guts to tell himself the truth: that he's a hypocrite and a failure.

An observer

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jul 03 - 11:34 PM

Actually, I suspect that Dean always would tell the truth if in power. But, so did Jimmy Carter. Doesn't help to be thus as a politician. Ain't dat sad?

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 01:43 AM

Those who state that they think Bush may well think he is telling the truth -- sorry for the harsh term, but that is one of the aspects of the dry drunk, someone who has been damaged by alcoholism and drug abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:59 AM

Kind of an altered reality, so to speak...

Subject: Bush and the "bring it on" challenge
From: outfidel
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 06:12 AM

Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, saying: "President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said 'bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead." (ABC News)


US servicemen killed since the "bring it on" challenge: 72
Number of Bush relatives who have joined the all-volunteer military in the past year: 0


Next fall, you, too, can bring it on -- bring it on

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 02:06 PM

". . . led by a less than able mind who truly believes he is Superman with a destiny."

Lemme see, now . . . it seems that something like that has happen before, hasn't it?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 04:40 PM

Well, I just LOVED the brand spanking new story the White House came up with yesterday as to how those 16 little words made their way into the State of the Union address.

Since nobody was buying that it was all George Tenet's fault, the White House yesterday made the announcement (conveniently overlooked by most because of the Saddam's sons story), just hours after they (the White House) were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. In addition to that little revelation, the White House also announced that Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night last, discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.

They say that Gerson and Hadley apparently just forgot about the pesky details about those Niger uranium claims that had been made clear, repeatedly, by the CIA last October. Imagine that! They "just forgot" about that information. I suppose like the White House, Pentagon, and CIA "just forgot" to correct the State of Union 16 little words AFTER the fact too.

Bush ain't the guy runnin' this show. It's the Cheney Rumsfeld government, being directed by Daddy Bush and his cronies from Daddy's days as head of the CIA, VP & Pres. Just like Reagan was the dubious dupe in the 1980s, Dubya is the dubious dupe today. But there is no mistaking who is in charge of all this, and it ain't Dubya.


.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: LadyJean
Date: 23 Jul 03 - 11:40 PM

I signed a couple of paper petitions telling Mr. Bush I didn't like the war in Iraq. I even sent him a bag of rice. I don't think he noticed. Does he notice these internet petitions? Would my congressman? I suspect Mr. Santorum doesn't care.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 11:12 AM

It depends upon the issue, whether Congress and the administration pays attention. Now, with the war in Iraq, they knew they could get away with going to war, because the country always rallies behind the troops in war time. They knew the Hussein regime was incapable of defending Iraq against an attack from the likes of a military force from Botswana, much less the US and British military, due to the devastation of Saddam's military in 1991 and a decade of sanctions. So they knew they could get in there and declare victory quickly, with few casualties to our side. So they knew they could afford to thumb their noses at the anti-war sentiments of at least half the country prior to the war. What they don't seem to have thought out in advance, however, was the military backlash against them for getting the troops bogged down in the quagmire.

On the other hand, those 800,000 or so emails and faxes Congress got from citizens opposed to the June 2nd FCC ruling did cause the Republicans and Democrats to sit up and take notice, as we have seen with the posturing in Congress by both parties to make it appear as though they are On The Side of The People Against Big Media. So it depends on the issue, the polls, the responses they get from constituents, and what they think they can and can't get away with at any given time.

Notice, I don't mention them voting with integrity from the perspective of what is right or wrong with the legislation, in a way that would actually demonstrate thoughtful reflection about their vote, rooted in a moral framework that actually defends and upholds American democratic principles and values.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 11:51 AM

So, did you demand that Clinton tell the truth when he was in office? Oh, no, wait, that wasn't important. That was just a blow job from an intern. No big deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 12:17 PM

I think the impeachment proceedings were ample demonstration of just how badly Republicans like the Casual Observer, want to hear about blow jobs from interns. And certainly that is MUCH more important to people like them, than true high crimes and misdemeanors, like lying to the public about the evidence being used to justify going to war.

Is the Casual Observer here suggesting lying about blow jobs from interns in the Oval Office, is somehow more damaging to the nation than lying about the evidence used to justify taking the nation to war? Is that it? That obsession with lurid sex scandals is more important for the media to cover, than closely examining the evidence for going to war, and making critical assessments of the business of this morally indefensible war being waged in our name?

Is it any wonder that this is the result of that sick Republican mindset:

Media Coverage of Government Is Declining More Focus on Celebrity, Crime

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 05:26 PM

I never said I was a Republican. As a matter of fact, I am nothing of the kind.

All I'm saying, is that if it's good for one President to tell the truth, it ought to be good for all of them, regardless of party, regardless of subject matter. Truth is truth. Isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 06:15 PM

While truth is truth, I think all reasonable people would agree that all lies are not equal. You seem to be the one exercising the double standard by even mentioning Clinton's lies. I am not aware of anyone defending Clinton for lying about getting blow jobs from interns. Where most people disagreed with the witch hunt was whether or not it was an impeachable offense. I don't know of anyone except right wing nuts who felt it was.

Lying about the evidence put forth to send our troops into harms way and start a pre-emptive war is something that ought to be investigated, at the very least. I think most Americans would also agree that if we are willing to impeach a sitting president for lying about a blow job in the Oval Office, we ought to be willing to impeach a sitting president for lying about the evidence used to take us to war, which has now resulted in deaths of American troops, many innocent Iraqis, and is costing our already struggling economy $4 billion per month, which hasn't even been calculated into the mushroom cloud deficit.

Some Americans actually have their priorities straight about such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:04 PM

When Harry Truman decided that the military should be racially integrated, he knew that he would meet all kinds of opposition from the military itself. All this brass was lined up in the conference room and they had their arguments about why the military should not be integrated deployed and ready to fire. It had all the ear-marks of a long, hard battle. Then Truman walked into the conference room and, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, he issued an executive order—a command. Then he turned on his heel and walked out. End of story.

Clinton made a mistake (apart from not keeping his damned fly zipped in the first place). Rather than messing with the issue at all, and quibbling over the meaning of "is," and then flat-out lying ("I never had sex with that woman."), he should have responded, "My sex life is a private matter and is of no concern to anyone except me and my immediate family. You have no right to ask these questions of any citizen, president or otherwise, and I will not validate them by responding. I have more important issues to be concerned with, and so do you!" [Turn on heel and walk out.]

No one who wanted to attack him would have found that acceptable, but all they could do is howl and gnash their teeth. The matter would have fallen to the tabloid journalists and gossip-mongers and Clinton could have got on with matters of state. There would be a lot of speculation, of course, but I think Clinton would have gained respect instead of losing it. At least no one could say that he lied.

But since he did lie about it, he was wrong. Yet I find a lie about one's sex life (which is nobody's business in the first place) qualitatively quite different from a president lying to the citizens and to the world in an effort to gain support for a war of aggression.

And I wonder about the quality of mind of people who keep bringing up Clinton's peccadilloes and trying to say there's no difference between lying about that—something that affects no one outside of those directly involved (himself, Hillary, and Monica)—and lying about something that's going to bog the country down for years to come, all but destroy any attempts to reduce the budget deficit, establish a foreign policy that leads the world to regard us, quite rightly, with apprehension and suspicion, and kill a lot of people, both Iraqis and Americans—not to forget the British troops who got snookered into this as well. Perhaps I'm peculiar, but, to me, there is a difference.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 07:25 PM

I also wonder about the quality of mind of people who believe that simply because a citizen has a problem with Bush's lies about the war, that, ergo, they supported Clinton's lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 08:07 PM

"dry drunk"????? You don't really think he passed out after choking on a pretzel, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: curmudgeon
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 08:22 PM

I'm with you all the way Don. To equate the spilling of seed (Clinton) with the spilling of blood (Reagan, George II, George III) constitutes the epitomy of absurdity. The reactionaries seem to think that sex is more evil than killing. Besides, if Bill actually did get a "blow-job," there shouldn't have been any tell-tale stains on the dress.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Amos
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:18 PM

Many a slip twixt cup and lip, I suppose, Mister C.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:31 PM

Hey, I agree with Nicole on this one. President's should, ahhh, tell the truth, dangit.

With that said, I agree with Don that the difference between the effects on the world of Clinton's lie and Bush's are so vast interms of human suffering, that the two should not be compared.

Of course, the Bush apologist/revisionist/rationalizationists will keep trying to get this dog to hunt but in doing so only demonstrate just how out of the real world they are....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Jul 03 - 09:39 PM

I must say, after reading Dean's website, he certainly looks like he is very good at straddling a fine line. Or perhaps his handlers are. The quesion that remains in my mind is whether or not this is a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 09:38 AM

I didn't disagree that we should demand the truth from Bush. Of course I think we should. But I also think that if we demand it from one, we should demand it from all. Equal time, and all that. Otherwise, what's the point? Perhaps all lies are not equal, in the sense that some cause a great deal more trouble than others; however, a lie is still a lie.

I would have been completely all right if Clinton had just said, yes, I made a mistake. Now let's forget about it and go on. But because he lied, he dragged a lot of people into the maelstrom with him. Granted, it wasn't war, and no one died. But a lot of people were hurt by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 10:25 AM

Casual Observer, I wholeheartedly agreed with Nicole, wondering about the state of mind of a person making the insinuations you are attempting to make about people demanding that the Bush administration be investigated for lying to the American people and the world about the cause for war. But after your last response, I'm no longer wondering about the state of your mind, I'm certain of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:17 AM

Danged, poor ol' Bush has a second front opening up. According to the Washington Post he ain't come clean on what he knew and when about the threats of an attack prior to 9/11. Oh, when it rains, it pours. I reckon that what one can expect from a man who has lived his entire life with people giving him passes. Problem is that *history* is not so kind. The crap does get accounted for at some point in time and fir Bush, that time is upon him....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 01:08 PM

I made no insinuations about anyone. I merely asked a question. Apparently it's one that no one really wants to take the time to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 01:19 PM

What's tyhe question, then, CO? Whethe ror not truth is good? Yes indeed. Should Clinton have told the truth? Certes. Are the falsifications comparable? No -- they are orders of magnitude apart!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:06 PM

The question is, should we not demand truth from all Presidents, and not just pick and choose which ones we want the truth from? (Whether or not the falsifications are comparable is only a matter of opinion, and everyone has one of those.) I think that insisting on the truth from one person, and letting another slide, is inconsistent. How many of you tell your children it's okay to lie?

Yes, of course we all do it. "Does this outfit make me look fat?" is a prime example of a question we might all think it's okay to answer falsely. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, after all. But sometimes even a small lie does more harm than good. I don't think anyone can deny that Clinton's antics were damaging to himself, his image, his family, his administration, Miss Lewinsky, and to the global image of the United States. And no, of course that isn't comparable to bloodshed, not in the least.

If we were more stern about insisting on the truth from more elected officials, we might have fewer problems with the way things are run. That's all I'm saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:17 PM

Again Casual Observer, why are you making the assumption that those of us who want Bush to be held accountable for his lies, and for an investigation to be started to find the truth, condoned Clinton lying? And upon what evidence are you basing your assumption?

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 05:20 PM

Well, CO, it *seems*, given the comparision of Clinton lieing about an "affair" and Bush lieing to take a country to war, that by the very comparision, the implication that the two lies are in the same class. Had you used Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin lie, 'er James "We've been attacked" Polk's lie to start the Mexican War, then yer comparision would *appear* less suspicious.

See, whenever, Bush screws up there are a flood of folks who bring up the same old lame Clinton thing and that further damages your point.

And, no. I am not a Clinton apologist. Didn't vote for him or like him but lets at least find some level of parity in your defense (or critique) of folks behavior...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 10:04 PM

I'll tell you GUEST,Casual Observer. People are going to lie. Politicians are going to lie. It's a fact of life we can't change. But what we can do is to create a hierarchy of gravity for different kinds of lies. Sort of the way we do with crimes, ie: misdemeanors, felonies, capital crimes, etc.

I would think that a lie about one's personal life or sex-life would fall into a category similar in gravity to a misdemeanor, while a lie about reasons for waging a first strike war on another country would fall into a category similar in gravity to a felony or a capital crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 10:30 PM

Hear, hear! That's the CarolC I know. Well said!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: outfidel
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:08 PM

> The question is, should we not demand truth from all Presidents, and not just pick and choose which ones we want the truth from?

Yes, we should. And we do.

Full disclosure: I voted twice for Clinton. When evidence of his perjury and obstruction of justice became part of the public record, I fully supported his impeachment. What he did clearly fell into the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors", and the Constitution is crystal clear about what to do with a President who is guilty of such an act.

I also voted for George Bush in 2000. His apparent lies about Iraqi WMD in order to launch a preemptive war are serious charges indeed. I wasn't sure that his acts were impeachable offenses, however, until I read this article by John Dean (a Republican who knows a thing or two about impeachment). There is a clear precedence set in the Nixon case that manipulating the intelligence apparatus for political gain is an impeachable offense. If Bush intentionally lied about WMD in order to justify war -- which I believe he did, but which would need to be proven by Congress -- then he should be impeached.

As far as consistency in demanding honesty from public officials, the *real* issue is this: will the Republicans in Congress (such as Henry Hyde, whom I respect), who spoke so eloquently about truth, the Constitution, and the President in 1998, have the integrity and courage to speak out in 2003 as well? The world awaits.

"Nothing sacred but the truth", as one local newspaper says.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 03 - 11:48 PM

Don't get too excited, Bobert. Wait till you see what I put on the Dean blog thread. And I'm still thinking seriously about voting for Bush next time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:53 AM

Yikes, CarolC. I'm seriously thinkin' to sending the boys down to Georgia, roundin' ya up ands getting you back up 'round these parts where folks, with the exception of Claymore, got their thinkerators properly adjusticated....

Jus' funnin, girl. One more vote fir Bush in *Bush country* ain't gonna throw the outcome off one bit... But I do believe you have been down there way too long....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 08:59 AM

I'm in Michigan right now, Bobert, until mid-September at least. I think I might be in Democrat country here.

Subject: RE: BS: Demand that the President tell the truth
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 26 Jul 03 - 10:19 AM

GUEST, if you will kindly read my original post, I didn't make any assumptions. I asked a question, and gave it a possible answer, based upon many of the posts I have read on this forum. I wonder why you are being so defensive.

I am satisfied with the well-reasoned responses to my post. Thank you.