Question for Iraq war supporters

[maineman]

Convenient isn't it? No evidence to back up your bullshit claim, yet it is still true according to you. Remind me again how courts work and how evidence and such applies?

Ohh ya provide us with a list of all these people that claimed such a list existed.

Kennedy never killed anyone but Bush lied. Gotta ya. Partisan hack indeed.

Let me remind you that this is not a court of law... it's an internet message board. That does not give you the right to make provably false claims, i.e. Kennedy is a murderer.

Kennedy most certainly caused someone's death. Bush clearly made statements creating a false impression.

This english language stuff is tough for you, ain't it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me remind you that this is not a court of law... it's an internet message board. That does not give you the right to make provably false claims, i.e. Kennedy is a murderer.

Kennedy most certainly caused someone's death. Bush clearly made statements creating a false impression.

This english language stuff is tough for you, ain't it?

Yet it is perfectly ok to claim Bush was bumped ahead of a list of people waiting to join the Guard? Nice double standard there. In fact all the claims against Bush are in fact unproven. Yet you and your buddies have no trouble backing them and defending each other when ever it is pointed out you have no evidence.

Last I checked if you kill someone and it was not self defense or defense of someone else, that is a form of murder. Go ahead correct me if I am wrong.

Last I checked Perjury is lying to a Judge under Oath as well. But maybe you have a different "English" definition?

 

[AllieBaba]

There's no list. If he got bumped, there'd be evidence of it. The Nat'l Guard and the Army in general aren't that good at covering their tracks.

And Mr. English....please capitalize the letter "e" when referring to the "English" language. This will keep me from laughing while cruising through your posts.

 

[maineman]

Yet it is perfectly ok to claim Bush was bumped ahead of a list of people waiting to join the Guard? Nice double standard there. In fact all the claims against Bush are in fact unproven. Yet you and your buddies have no trouble backing them and defending each other when ever it is pointed out you have no evidence.

Last I checked if you kill someone and it was not self defense or defense of someone else, that is a form of murder. Go ahead correct me if I am wrong.

Last I checked Perjury is lying to a Judge under Oath as well. But maybe you have a different "English" definition?

All I claim is that the former Speaker and Lt. Gov of Texas claimed that Bush was bumped ahead and that he helped make it happen. I guess you are calling HIM a liar?

And calling Bush a liar is not calling him a criminal. Lying isn't a crime.

But it IS pretty clear that he made a statement that served to convey a false impression. That is a lie. There was not absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD's yet he and his administration repeatedly told us there was.

And...When you driving along in your car, under the speed limit....and you hit a patch of black ice and go into a skid and hit another car and the driver of that car dies, did you murder him, or was it an accident?

Last I checked, we were innocent of crimes in American until proven GUILTY of those crimes. Clinton was not found guilty of the crime of perjury.

But I realize that is all just "semantics" for a moron like you.

 

[maineman]

There's no list. If he got bumped, there'd be evidence of it. The Nat'l Guard and the Army in general aren't that good at covering their tracks.

And Mr. English....please capitalize the letter "e" when referring to the "English" language. This will keep me from laughing while cruising through your posts.

i'll bet the poetry of e.e. cummings makes you pee your granny underpants

 

[AllieBaba]

e.e. cummings did it on purpose, and not likely while criticizing someone else's English skills.

 

[maineman]

e.e. cummings did it on purpose, and not likely while criticizing someone else's English skills.

whatever you say, grandma

now why not respond to the allegations of former Texas Lt Gov. Roy Barnes or STFU?

 

[AllieBaba]

"Clinton was not found guilty of the crime of perjury."

Yes, he was.

 

[maineman]

"Clinton was not found guilty of the crime of perjury."

Yes, he was.

no. he was not.
he was never even broght to court for that crime.

 

[AllieBaba]

And yet he was disbarred....interesting.

A person wonders...how can a person be acquited if there was never a crime?

The loser committed perjury. He got a pass because he was a president in his last term.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bush was elected before the public figured out how bad they had been lied to about the war in Iraq.

Gore and Kerry put forth the same lies...

 

[DeadCanDance]

Gore and Kerry put forth the same lies...

finally, one Honest con, who admits Bush lied.

I agree that Kerry, Clinton, and some democrats enabled and exaggerted Bush's lies, and are partially culpable for the lies themselves.

But, I appreciate your honesty, in admitting Bush lied us into war.

 

[maineman]

And yet he was disbarred....interesting.

A person wonders...how can a person be acquited if there was never a crime?

The loser committed perjury. He got a pass because he was a president in his last term.

he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... nor was he acquited. He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.

His disbarrment was an administrative function of the bar association, not a legal function of our courts and criminal justice system.

Understand now, granny?

 

[AllieBaba]

Another idiotic argument fueled by nothing but lefty hatred.

 

[M14 Shooter]

finally, one Honest con, who admits Bush lied.

Hardly.
The OBVIOUS point is that if Bush lied, then so too did most of the Democratic party, including their 2000 and 2004 candidates, as well as the likely 2008 mominee.

I agree that Kerry, Clinton, and some democrats enabled and exaggerted Bush's lies, and are partially culpable for the lies themselves.

Not that this will ever stop you froim voting for them.

 

[AllieBaba]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199902/ai_n8850126
Senate acquits President of obstructing justice
Human Events, Feb 26, 1999
On February 12, after voting to acquit President Clinton of perjury, the Senate then voted 50 to 50 to clear him of the Article II obstruction of justice allegations.....

and
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/News/ClintonDisbar-011001.htm

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.

 

[maineman]

so...I am glad you agree that Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury. can we move on - in a non-metamucel sort of way - grandma?

 

[Alpha1]

he may have lied under oath, but, as I said, he was never found guilty of the CRIME of perjury... nor was he acquited. He was never even brought to court on that charge where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.

His disbarrment was an administrative function of the bar association, not a legal function of our courts and criminal justice system.

Understand now, granny?

Yeah, we can move on....after your lesson is finished sonny...
So lets review a little history....

Article I: Perjury before the grand jury

Article II: Perjury in the Jones case
Article alleges perjury in the Paula Jones civil case, charging that the president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony as part of his answers in the affidavit and in his January 17 deposition

Article III: Obstruction of justice
Article alleges obstruction of justice, charging Clinton with encouraging Lewinsky to submit a false affidavit and give false testimony in court, plotting to hide his gifts to her and attempting to find Lewinsky a job to prevent her truthful testimony. It also claims Clinton made false and misleading statements to key White House staff and allowed his attorney, Bob Bennett to make false statements about the Lewinsky affidavit.

Article IV: Abuse of power
Article alleges abuse of power, charging the president with making misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States, his Cabinet and White House aides. The last charge also contends Clinton frivolously asserted executive privilege and made perjurious statements to Congress

SO;

never even brought to court on that charge(perjury)? WRONG Sonny.....
You do recall a little issue called impeachment?

where a finding of guilt or acquital could have been rendered.??
WRONG AGAIN Sonny.....



President of the United States Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury and obstruction of justice
---------------------------------------------

His disbarrment was an administrative function of the bar association, not a legal function of our courts and criminal justice system.????

More bullshit from the spinner in Chief, mm....


In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[6]

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."


Your dismissed, Sonny

 

[Shogun]

I look forward to being this unhinged about former presidents 8 years after bush leaves the white house too.

 

[AllieBaba]

Naw, because you won't find any conservatives willing to go to the ridiculous lengths that Clintonites are willing to go to make things up in order to make their guy look good. Even years after.

We just aren't like that. We keep our eyes on the future. Dems spend a lot of time re-forming the past.