Ralph Nader says impeachment (Boston Globe article)

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Good article. It's astounding how this doesn't bother 'certain' elements, but they still bring up lying about a blow job almost daily.

If it wasn't for the damn media and that damn Clinton, we'd have been in and out of Iraq in 12 days, leaving peace and a lasting democracy. If it wasn't for the media, the whole Middle East would currently be democracized and pro-west. They'd be sending *us* aid because they'd be so thankful, if it wasn't for the media.

How dare they report on this war! The media should stay the hell out of it and quit hindering our abilty to fight!

We should NOT hold anybody in this admin accountable for anything, especially not for a useless war based on lies and deceipt!
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
Being a former right-wing, republican, conservative, kool-aid drinking member of society I honestly see where your coming from. I still have pretty much the same circle of friends and they still believe to this day the Clinton was/is the devil and "W" can do no wrong, just that things aren't working out as planned in Iraq. WTF?? Anyone know what the plan was? Clinton is the bad guy for vetoing the partial birth abortion ban and getting a blow job while GW is the hero yet he is practicing retroactive abortion as we speak. Go figure.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i was all ready to come on here and rap nader.....but,after some careful consideration,i just can`t do it in good conscience.....

the guy saved us from al gore....

carry on with your venting,gents. :rant2: :D
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
"Good article. It's astounding how this doesn't bother 'certain' elements, but they still bring up lying about a blow job almost daily."

Liberal logic at its finest--
Perjury is ok depending on what the lie is about.
The cost of event was the the fault of those prosectuting not the one that did the crime.

"--would concur Clinton agreees as numerous pardons of his were for those committing perjury--and speaking of pardons--

Put your liberal spin on this one Matt and see wha you come up with--this should be good :)

---On the night before and morning of his departure from office, Bill Clinton made several controversial "midnight" pardons. Aside from pardoning political allies and scandal co-conspirators such as Susan McDougal, Henry Cisneros, and his brother Roger, Bill pardoned fugitive criminal millionaire Marc Rich. Rich was charged in the early eighties with several felony offenses but fled to Switzerland to avoid facing trial. Among Rich's crimes were oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis and ties to arms smuggling. Amazingly, Clinton completely disregarded pardon protocol in the Rich case and failed to properly inform many authorities in the justice department of Rich's fugitive status. The story becomes more interesting considering that Marc Rich's ex wife Denise, who fought for his pardon, is a close Clinton friend and DNC donor. Denise Rich gave $1 million in contributions to the DNC, $450,000 to Bill Clinton's library fund, and $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's senate campaign according to the Washington Times (2/22/00). The Rich pardon appears to be a political pay off and, though the president may constitutionally pardon anyone, it appears he abused his authority in a quid pro quo pardon in exchange for political donations. Clinton's pardon of Rich has prompted criticism from even the most liberal Clinton defenders and several prominent Democrats. Former President Carter called the pardon "disgraceful" while Senator Tom Harkin and even Rep. Barney Frank criticized it!
But that is by no means all. Hillary Clinton's brother Hugh Rodham was paid over $400,000 dollars for successfully fighting for pardons and commutations for criminals Carlos Vignali and Almon Glenn Braswell, two included in Clinton's last minute pardons and commutations list. Upon the eve of this story breaking, Hillary and Bill denied any knowledge of Hugh's involvement and, under pressure, called on him to return the money. Translation: they got caught.
 
Last edited:

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Wayne,

I've addressed the Marc Rich thing about 10x. You must have somehow missed all of those posts. The guy was a money launderer and was involved in Iran-Contra. All presidents pardon 'felons' and there often is some sort of agenda behind it . I posted a list of presidents and # of pardons per year in office, Clinton tied for the second fewest. It really doesn't bother me that Marc Rich is roaming the streets. I love how your post cites 'pardon protocol.' What blog did you get that from?

I know that you love to revisit the Clinton era in half your posts. Do you have any opinion at all on the article PF posted or Naders thoughts about the war? How about all the facts cited in it that prove that Bush continually lied in order to get 'certain people' behind the war. It's not really new info, but that's the topic of this thread. How in the world do you take a thread about Bush lying and turn it into a Clinton/Marc Rich thing?
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
When the Corporate Press finally prints the contents of the Downy Street Memo Bush will most likely be impeached. His lies did more than mess up a dress.
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
What I still find absolutly remarkable is that it is undeniable Bush lied and started a war without approval, the blood of thousands of lives is undeniably on his hands and yet he has followers. Why exactly did anyone want Saddam out of power in the first place? He was a threat to American lives? He was a threat to his own people? Seems to me Goerge Bush has been an overwhelming success at two things the W supporters calim as the reason to go to war in the first place.

Anyone seen Bin Laden recently? You know who he is right, the only guy responsible for more American deaths than the sitting president.

All you right wingers please get over the abortion issue, it's not going away in your life time, accept it and please elect someone who can fix the fixable problems in this country, honestly get over it, you lost this one. Accept it and move on.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Whats a more costly lie, A) getting head and lying about it, or 2) lying about Iraq and killing thousands of Americans? If anything Cheney should be impeached and sentenced to a federal prison for the overall collective body of lies that he has uttered since 2000, as well as the fraud that he has engaged in.
 

Master Capper

Emperior
Forum Member
Jan 12, 2002
9,104
11
0
Dunedin, Florida
Penguinfan,

I think Cheney said Bin Laden was working with Saddam so he must be somewhere in Iraq, even though every intelligence agency in the world said that Saddam and Bin hated each other.
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
Master Capper said:
Penguinfan,

even though every intelligence agency in the world said that Saddam and Bin hated each other.

But we all know every intelligence agency that does not support the Bush adgenda is lying, come on, try to pay attention.
 

Marco

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2003
793
0
0
When asked about blowjobs, Clinton should have told them to mind thier own business, and not even answered the question.

The question should have never been asked in the first place. Consensual sex is not a crime, and the whole Lewinski/Clinton relationship should have never been examined. If Clinton lied uder oath about sex he had a right to because it was his own business and the government didn't have the right to question him about it.

The Clinton scandal set the stage for a great deal of wasteful spending, all in trying to figure out some exact sperm count. But not near the wasteful spending that has occured by the Bush administration, spending hundreds of billions of dollars and losing thousands of troops...and no end in sight.

The national debt was about 5.5 trillion when Dubya entered office and 2 more trillion has been added since then.

In comparison, whatever anybody thinks of an extramarital blowjob, it's nowhere worth over 2 trillion dollars. The taxpayers are stuck with 2 trillion dollars more debt regardless how many blowjobs any politician receives. That's the big difference.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i agree with the clinton blowjobs scandal as being a farce...but to say that"it is undeniable Bush lied and started a war without approval",is a big sack of horsecrap...

who`s approval didn`t bush get?...and if you say the u.n.,you`ll get laughed right off the board...

disagree with the war....that`s fine..the issue is still legitimately debatable....but congress gave him the go ahead....and as we know now,the u.n. was in the bag...

now that the dirty laundry is being aired,who would ask for u.n. approval to spit in the street?....much less make any policy decisions....
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
GW If you want to stop issue of GW lieing just ask them to link the quote where he lied---
A liberal definition of a lie---Someone reports figures based on intelligence and reports it same as all his pedecesors both liberal and conservative and he's a lier.

flip side--Someone who has 1st hand info and knowing lies--under oath-- shakes his finger at at em and scowls and the liberal lemmings jump up and cheer about him. Makes one wonder.
 

Marco

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2003
793
0
0
"Makes one wonder."

No wonder about it. Clinton lied under oath about an issue that should have never been brought up, an issue that cost the taxpayer nothing. (the only cost to the taxpayer was all the money blown finding out if a president is like most horny guys on the planet. The blowjob didn't cost the taxpayer a red cent.)

If Bush lied it is about an issue that has cost the American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and cost over 1500 American troops and how many Iraqi civilians lives.

Regardless if one chooses to defend along party lines, a blowjob doesn't equal a war between countries. Plain and simple.

Comparing a Clinton blowjob with a Bush war is like comparing bubble gum on the sidewalk with the nuke meltdown at Cherynobl.
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
Doesn't it bother any of you Bush supporters even a little bit that he lied and there were no WMD? Doesn't it bother you even a bit? Are you too busy defending him to face the facts?
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Some of you guys just don't get it. He wrapped the evidence around his desires. He used the (known to him at the time to be) false BS about Iraq trying to get uranium from Nigeria. Wayne, that was a bold-face lie. Period. His own CIA told him that it was a forgery before his state of the union address. Despite all facts suggesting that this was not the case, he still sold that bs to Congress and to the American people.

As shown by the Downing Street memo, he not only conned America, but Britain as well. Wayne, would you call that memo 'proof?' Probably not in your eyes.

As far as 'approval' goes, no, I definitely don't think we need the UN's approval, but I guess the ironic thing is that everybody else was right and we were wrong. GW, would you concede that, or are we still working on the theory that rogue Russian forces swooped in and took every last piece of evidence of WMD?

Or maybe he was able to get every last canister of mustard gas up to Syria without anybody noticing. Not the inspectors, not the satellites. Nothing and nobody.

Or just maybe, we were totally wrong and every UN inspector was right and Hans Blix was right and every report from our CIA and everybody else that states that their program was dormant since 1991 was right.

It's easy to convince Congress when 80% of the 'evidence' came from disgruntled ex-Iraqis. It's also easy when you take the slightest affirmative scraps from the CIA and blow them up and ignore anything that was contradictory. It's easy when you point to some balsa wood model airplane with a range of 40 miles and say that we are threatened by that piece of junk.

You see, before the invasion, Congress didn't get to see all of contradictory information. If they had, perhaps they would have come to a different conclusion.

So yeah, Congress approved it and there were plenty of quotes attributed to Democrats that mentioned WMD. Well, that's because they trusted that the Presidents information was the slightest bit accurate. Somebody like Barbara Boxer, or even John Kerry, really is hardly more privy to all relevant information than we are. They spat back out the same information that they were fed by Bush & co. And every last bit of it was wrong. Yet you guys still defend them.

There was never one scrap of evidence, ever, linking Saddam to Osama, yet Cheney and Rice both tried that one. That's called a lie, or maybe just a horrible, hopeful guess.
 

Marco

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 29, 2003
793
0
0
penguinfan.....these guys are too busy waving the flag and being blind followers to actually look at what's happening.....

But hey, dump another trillion onto the national debt in a vain attempt to export democracy to the middle east.....

It's just your grandkids gonna have to pay it off. :mj07:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
kosar...we`ve been through this a zillion times....

must i pull up previous responses to the same old questions?....

reelected by more votes than clinton ever won by.....

you guys didn`t do your jobs,did you?


if he lied,and that`s as ridiculous a statement as seeing europeans march with posters showing scenes from abu ghraib, not of the beheading of daniel pearl or the murder of margaret hassan....or dan rather still saying that we still don`t know if the national guard documants are legitimate.....lol

it must have slid by the majority of american voters...........

again...a little tidbit...

"""UNITED NATIONS - U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

U.N. inspectors have been blocked from returning to Iraq since the U.S.-led war in 2003 so they have been using satellite photos to see what happened to the sites that were subject to U.N. monitoring because their equipment had both civilian and military uses.

In the report to the U.N. Security Council, acting chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos said he’s reached no conclusions about who removed the items or where they went. He said it could have been moved elsewhere in Iraq, sold as scrap, melted down or purchased.

He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. “However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair.”""""

interesting headline....""Nonexistent WMD Equipment Missing""..... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top