Which U.S. President's Lie Carries More Implications?

[McGyver]

Hmmm. Court documents in the Libby case now reveal President Bush, all along, was one of those who authorized the leaking of classified information (incl. of Valerie Plame) leading up to the Iraq war - according to today's MSN story http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/.

So - the Question I pose is: Which U.S. President's lie carries more critical implications for America? That by President Clinton, or by President Bush?

President Clinton had stated, "I did not have sex with that woman."

President Bush had stated, "Anyone in the White House who leaked classified information on the identify of a CIA operative will be dealt with harshly." (unsure if quoted verbatim). I believe he also more directly denied any involvement in another press interview.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The wheels of justice are slowly turning.

You know, Delay was largely responsible for Clinton's impeachment. And if the Dems win in 06, Bush will likely be thrown out of office.

 

[BobG]

The wheels of justice are slowly turning.

You know, Delay was largely responsible for Clinton's impeachment. And if the Dems win in 06, Bush will likely be thrown out of office.

Even though Dick Cheney is Vice President?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even though Dick Cheney is Vice President?

Let's see where the Libby things goes... But yes, we would certainly hope that it goes as the Agnew/Nixon admin did - Agnew first, then Nixon. Besides, do you really think Chenney would play any greater role as President than he does now? He would be a lame old duck just counting the days.

 

[russ_watters]

And if the Dems win in 06, Bush will likely be thrown out of office.

I don't see how that's possible - certainly with a simple majority they may well choose to impeach him, but unless the Democrats take an enormous majority, they will need an awful lot of Republicans to vote to remove him.

 

[Manchot]

I don't see how that's possible - certainly with a simple majority they may well choose to impeach him, but unless the Democrats take an enormous majority, they will need an awful lot of Republicans to vote to remove him.

You know, Republicans have been dead silent on this issue. To me, that means that there is no way that they can spin this. I think their days of mindlessly supporting Bush are pretty much over. When you bill yourself as the party of national security, and your president leaks information for political gain (even if the act was legal), then it becomes pretty hard to support him.

 

[NateTG]

President Bush had stated, "Anyone in the White House who leaked classified information on the identify of a CIA operative will be dealt with harshly." (unsure if quoted verbatim). I believe he also more directly denied any involvement in another press interview.

Well, Cheney can still face the music, so it's not necessarily untrue. Not to mention that it's not entirely clear to me that when Bush or Cheney (who are after all, authorized to declassify documents) reveal information, it's actually a leak.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't see how that's possible - certainly with a simple majority they may well choose to impeach him, but unless the Democrats take an enormous majority, they will need an awful lot of Republicans to vote to remove him.

A simple majority in the House will allow them to impeach, just like with Clinton. A simple majority in the Senate will see him tried, convicted and removed from office.

[edit] I think that because the Republican majority has declined to provide any oversight these past 5 years will cause them tremendous trouble this mid-term. [/edit]

 

[russ_watters]

It's 2/3 to convict, Skyhunter.

Article 1, section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

 

[Skyhunter]

It's 2/3 to convict, Skyhunter.

Article 1, section 3: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

To bad there are still plenty of "my party right or wrong" conservatives out there to let the treasonous B&$!@*# off the hook!

After all he has done to America in five years, I think we are all Democrats now.

 

[McGyver]

Let's see where the Libby things goes... But yes, we would certainly hope that it goes as the Agnew/Nixon admin did - Agnew first, then Nixon. Besides, do you really think Chenney would play any greater role as President than he does now? He would be a lame old duck just counting the days.

Didn't anyone wonder WHY the Libby trial was put off until AFTER the '06 elections? I suspect a "deal" has already been struck! What that is ... is like a board game. Most of the plays have already been made. Who will be left standing? Cheney makes for a nice catch, but what if...?

Trust me on this. The only thing the Bush White House is concerned with is having a Republican win in the '08 election. Most of the power rests with the President, and the re-aligned USSC will affirm these new Presidential powers. Therefore, Bush cannot afford to be impeached, and any costs to others' careers.

Things are not always as they appear. But, if you can see deeper, you can see ...

 

[Amp1]

Source: http://www.scrantontimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16450661&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=418218&rfi=6

“I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information,” Mr. Bush said, revealing himself as either a liar or a fool, perhaps both. Either he authorized the leaks, or Mr. Cheney did so without his permission. Either way, it’s time for a reckoning.

And so it is high tiime, a bible belter might say our country is being led down the road tot perdition.

...Until Thursday, the only element missing was a rogue president who follows the Nixonian logic that states, “If the president does it, it can’t be illegal.”
Surely, President Bush and his administration have used this excuse before. Secretly authorizing the torture of detainees and wiretapping the phone conversations of unsuspecting Americans are just a pair in a laundry list of examples of a White House that plays by its own rules.
While these transgressions outraged many Americans, they have been sanctioned by a criminally negligent Republican Congress and excused by the echo chamber of conservative news outlets. A lack of congressional oversight and a campaign of relentless, concentrated spin has helped the president survive these scandals, but no amount of truth-twisting can excise the tumor now swelling inside the Bush presidency.

The cancer needs to be cut out before it destroys a country.

The reporters (CHRIS KELLY, Times-Tribune columnist) words:

It all has an eerily familiar ring, but something is very different this time around. We’re no longer talking about a cancer on the presidency, but a presidency that’s a cancer on the nation.

 

[edward]

And now this:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested on Thursday for the first time that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States. "I'm not going to rule it out," Mr. Gonzales said when asked about that possibility at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. -New York Times

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=10881


My God bush claimed over and over that the wiretapping/e-mail reading, was only being done when there was one foreign party involved.

What really bothers me about this claim that the president is "above all authority" is that the domestic information gathered in this manner can be used for political gain. Or for that matter it could easil be used for financial gain.

This situation has sunk far, far, too low to be a part of a democratic nation.

 

[cronxeh]

President Clinton had stated, "I did not have sex with that woman."

And look what that statement led us to! A Family Guy material

My fellow Americans, I have not been entirely truthful with you. I did giggittygiggiydoo that girl. I gashmogied her gaflabity with my googus. And I am sorry.

 

[Manchot]

Hey Russ, since you're usually the one defending Bush, I'm just curious: what's your take on this?

 

[russ_watters]

I already gave my input.

 

[Manchot]

I already gave my input.

I mean on the declassification/leak issue, not on whether Bush can be impeached or not.

 

[McGyver]

What really bothers me about this claim that the president is "above all authority" is that the domestic information gathered in this manner can be used for political gain. Or for that matter it could easil be used for financial gain.

Correct. This is the TRUE concern at the heart of the President and NSA's unregulated "easedropping." Information COULD easily be collected and used to destroy potential political rivals, reporters, and federal regulators (i.e. ongoing investigation into Libby trial).

With respect to big competition and info on/between competing companies, HOW MUCH would a big Wall Street firm pay for info to destroy its competition, critical scientists, investors, etc?

And speak of insider trading - what price might Wall Street funds and foreign investors pay for this information, esp. Arab where records aren't available to the U.S.?

This could make Iran Contra look like sandbox childs play! Such information and $ would then enable the sitting President Bush and his selected Republican successors to control the White House and the country.

Again, most of the POWER today rests with the President! The Iraq War conveniently anables these POWERS. There you have it: Why the U.S. invaded Iraq, and How Bush selected the 2 new USSC Justices. It was never really about overturning Roe v. Wade. It was about upholding the White House's new claims on Presidential Powers - Check Mate!

 

[edward]

McGyver

I agree completely, and since this absolute presidential power depends greatly on having the nation at war, we will remain at war. Otherwise Bush's war power turns into no power.

I live near an AF base in southern AZ, and there has been a tremendous increase in the number of training flights headed for the Goldwater bombing range. There are also several squadrons of Navy F18's training here now. They have never trained here before, but then again this is the desert.

In addition a local 450 member National Guard attack helicopter unit has just been mobilized for two years. The unit is to go through eight months of intensive training before deployment to the Middle East.

My gut feeling now is that we will be sending Iran some shock and awe in the not too distant future.

 

[McGyver]

Apparently for this extreme Right-Wing administration, it never really mattered whether the U.S. prevaiedl in any of these wars. So long as the U.S. is engaged in a "war," it enables special far-reaching Presidential powers. Perhaps the issue we Americans and Congress should be raising, is Are we really at War?

I can't recall, but I don't think Bush ever requested a "Declaration of War" from Congress! Bush just struted right past it - stating it was a continuation of the 911 Response. Good constitutional scholars could attack him on this point - and perhaps strip him of the War powers he is claiming.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I'm pretty sure congress allowed it if Saddam didn't give up his WMD's.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Here I found the official congressional authorization.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

 

[edward]

The use of military force was auhorized, but there was never any formal declaration of war. For that matter there was no declaration of war for: Korea or Vietnam. So where does Bush get this drivel about his war powers?

During the Korean and Vietnam eras referred to as wars, none of the sitting presidents took it upon themselves to take control of the intelligence community, spy on the American people, and turn their administrations into a secret enclave of a select few.

Bush elecits "terrorism" as his battle cry, yet Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Even so he clings to "terrorism" as if it were the only word in his vocabulary.

This is all about oil folks. If there wasn't any oil in the Middle East, we wouldn't be in the Middle east. The only place we used military force in a justified and uncoerced manner was in Afghanistan.

We all know whose lies had the most detrimental effect on the American people. The point now is, when will the deception stop? If we take military action against Iran we will have troops in the Middle East until the oil runs out.

Yet I have a gut feeling that if our war president continues we will intervene militarily in Iran and the same rallying cries will be heard by the American people: Terrorism, nuclear weapons, terrorism, nuclear weapons on and on and on.

 

[McGyver]

Hmmm. War against Iran.

(Thinking for the Bush White House) "Geez, I wonder how much oil would climb if we attacked Iran. $100 a barrel real quickly. That would mean all of our oil friends and interests would make a lot more money. Then we could really control the country, plus scare 'em all over more terror!"

Strangely, the Bush White House isn't lying! Bit by bit, they're now telling the truth. And the American people are just taking it like there is no alternate course.

 

[SOS2008]

The use of military force was auhorized, but there was never any formal declaration of war. For that matter there was no declaration of war for: Korea or Vietnam. So where does Bush get this drivel about his war powers?

Good point, and why I have always said Bush is a self declared "war president" for an invasion he needlessly instigated.

About the Plame leak: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-10-cia-leak_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

There are two, related issues here.

First is that of Plame's name. She was still undercover (classified information) when Libby had his meeting with RNC pundit Judith Miller. In that meeting, most of what was discussed was about Plame, who she is, and spin to discredit her husband Joe Wilson.

The information that Bush declassified was parts of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to answer questions about why the United States invaded Iraq. Though he can legally declassify what ever he chooses, the problem is proper procedure was not followed (the MO for BushCo) and instead of releasing the entire report, Bush "cherry picked" parts to be released to the public, i.e., fixing the intelligence to fit the agenda.

It is clear that Cheney gave approval to Libby to smear Wilson, and it is clear that Bush mislead the American people, Congress, and the UN about uranium/aluminum tube/yellowcake from Niger.

What the RNC argues is that the smear against Wilson was not done illegally, and that Bush did not commit perjury by lying under oath. What the American people need to do is demand the impeachment of Bush/Cheney for abusing our trust with unethical tactics to achieve a costly and bungled agenda, illegal or not.

When one adds to this other trust violations, such as warrantless wiretaps, it should be a moot point that BushCo needs to go.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Bush elecits "terrorism" as his battle cry, yet Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Even so he clings to "terrorism" as if it were the only word in his vocabulary.

Not really. Saddam sanctioned and promoted terrorism.

The use of military force was auhorized, but there was never any formal declaration of war.

I don't understand the difference. A military buttkicking is a military buttkicking no matter what you call it. "war" is just a cool buzzword (war on drugs, war on terror etc.) Nevertheless congress authorized the USA to kick Saddam's butt. Of course during a time of war or during a time of peace, the president is not supposed to go around the constitution or break his presidential oathe.

 

[edward]

Not really. Saddam sanctioned and promoted terrorism.

A lot of dictators promote their own brand of terrorism and we ignore it. For that matter the CIA put the Baath party in power in Iraq. In Saddams case his brutal actions didn't affect the USA in any way. What did affect the USA was the fact that Saddam had signed hugh oil deals with France, Germany and Russia. And Bingo, we had a war to fight. First it was about WMD, then freedom for the Iraqi people, then terrorism coming into Iraq from outside, then an insergency, now a civil war.

And it was all brought about by the original deception of the American people by the Bush Administration and big oil.

I don't understand the difference. A military buttkicking is a military buttkicking no matter what you call it. "war" is just a cool buzzword (war on drugs, war on terror etc.) Nevertheless congress authorized the USA to kick Saddam's butt. Of course during a time of war or during a time of peace, the president is not supposed to go around the constitution or break his presidential oathe.

I was referring to past history in similar situations. ie

my quote: "During the Korean and Vietnam eras referred to as wars, none of the sitting presidents took it upon themselves to take control of the intelligence community, spy on the American people, and turn their administrations into a secret enclave of a select few."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I was referring to past history in similar situations. ie

my quote: "During the Korean and Vietnam eras referred to as wars, none of the sitting presidents took it upon themselves to take control of the intelligence community, spy on the American people, and turn their administrations into a secret enclave of a select few."

Are you kidding? Why do you think they passed the FISA and the FOIA? The US government has a legacy of 'cabals', secrecy, and spying on it's citizens. You're right that those wars did not bring about such practices but they didn't need to, they were already common place.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

...I was referring to past history in similar situations. ie

my quote: "During the Korean and Vietnam eras referred to as wars, none of the sitting presidents took it upon themselves to take control of the intelligence community, spy on the American people, and turn their administrations into a secret enclave of a select few."

I know and I meant what difference does it make what we call it. Isn't authorization to kick Saddam's butt for all intents and purposes authorization to go to war?

 

[loseyourname]

Are you kidding? Why do you think they passed the FISA and the FOIA? The US government has a legacy of 'cabals', secrecy, and spying on it's citizens. You're right that those wars did not bring about such practices but they didn't need to, they were already common place.

Historically, though, when we've had major wars, presidents have tended to up the ante as far as questionable actions are concerned. During Vietnam, Johnson all but fabricated the Gulk of Tonkin, and Nixon infiltrated peaceful protest groups with undercover informants meant to incite violence. During WWII, Roosevelt interned people of Japanese descent in inland camps, and confiscated their property and businesses. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended haebeas corpus. Roosevelt the first all but fabricated the Maine incident to get us into the Spanish/American war, then lied to the Filipinos about their prospects for independence.

Of course, these aren't necessarily examples of "spying on the American people," but I would argue they were even more eggregious encroachments on our traditional protections of liberty as citizens and on the separation of powers in government. Hell, the worst was probably when Jackson ignored a Supreme Court ruling to intitiate the Trail of Tears incident, and that didn't even happen during a war. That just happened because we discovered gold on Cherokee land and needed them off of it.

 

[Astronuc]

Are you kidding? Why do you think they passed the FISA and the FOIA? The US government has a legacy of 'cabals', secrecy, and spying on it's citizens. You're right that those wars did not bring about such practices but they didn't need to, they were already common place.

Nixon had the FBI spying on people domestically. I don't believe previous presidents used the NSA to spy domestically - but who knows?

Interestingly, the Republicans are employing push/pull polling in Maurice Hinchey's (Dem - NY) district. Apparently they are given false or misleading information in order to dissuade voters to vote for Hinchey and encourage voting for the Republican challenger. Hinchey has been pushing for impeachment of Bush with the basis that Bush and various officials from the administration lied (and deliberately so) to Congress.

Hinchey Statement On Revelation That President Bush Authorized Leak Of Classified Information To Bolster Administration's Public Case For War
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/040606bushleakauthorization.html

The heart and motive of this case is about the deliberate attempt at the highest levels of this administration to discredit those who were publicly revealing that the White House lied about its uranium claims leading up to the war. The Bush Administration knew that Iraq had not sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapon, yet they went around telling the Congress, the country, and the world just the opposite.

- Hinchey

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Nixon had the FBI spying on people domestically. I don't believe previous presidents used the NSA to spy domestically - but who knows?

He had HUAC and COINTELPRO. No reason to go for the NSA. Considering that the NSA has since developed the most advanced and useful technology for passive spying on anyone it's pretty obvious why Bush has gone to the NSA as opposed to the FBI. In Nixon's time I'm sure that the FBI had the best to offer.

 

[edward]

Are you kidding? Why do you think they passed the FISA and the FOIA? The US government has a legacy of 'cabals', secrecy, and spying on it's citizens. You're right that those wars did not bring about such practices but they didn't need to, they were already common place.

You are correct to an extent, but nothing in the past even remotely approaches the levels of the secrecy and spying of the Bush Administration. As for the examples given of past presidents "spying on Americans", for the most part they got caught.

Bush doesn't have to worry about getting caught. If anything substantial comes to light He can simply say that everything was approved by (his boy) the U.S Attorney general.

We can't assume that FISA and FOIA are working to protect the American people? Bush has totally sidestepped them.

 

[Astronuc]

Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush

I heard one of the authors, David Kipen of CCR, discuss the book. He makes some compelling arguments for impeachment.

http://mhpbooks.com/aoi.html

The Center for Constitutional Rights new book, Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush, makes the case for impeaching President Bush.

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2702

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933633085/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[SOS2008]

He had HUAC and COINTELPRO. No reason to go for the NSA. Considering that the NSA has since developed the most advanced and useful technology for passive spying on anyone it's pretty obvious why Bush has gone to the NSA as opposed to the FBI. In Nixon's time I'm sure that the FBI had the best to offer.

Bush has surpassed Nixon:

Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/o...585bf27c6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Puleeeze!