Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Apr 6, 2006 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2006 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. Apr 7, 2006 #3

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Even though Dick Cheney is Vice President?
     
  5. Apr 7, 2006 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  6. Apr 7, 2006 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  7. Apr 7, 2006 #6
    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.
     
  8. Apr 7, 2006 #7

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  9. Apr 7, 2006 #8
    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]
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2006
  10. Apr 7, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's 2/3 to convict, Skyhunter.

    Article 1, section 3:
    http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html
     
  11. Apr 7, 2006 #10
  12. Apr 7, 2006 #11
    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 .....
     
  13. Apr 8, 2006 #12
    Source: http://www.scrantontimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16450661&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=418218&rfi=6

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

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

    The reporters (CHRIS KELLY, Times-Tribune columnist) words:
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2006
  14. Apr 8, 2006 #13
    And now this:


    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2006
  15. Apr 8, 2006 #14

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

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

     
  16. Apr 8, 2006 #15
    Hey Russ, since you're usually the one defending Bush, I'm just curious: what's your take on this?
     
  17. Apr 8, 2006 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I already gave my input.
     
  18. Apr 8, 2006 #17
    I mean on the declassification/leak issue, not on whether Bush can be impeached or not.
     
  19. Apr 9, 2006 #18
    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!
     
  20. Apr 9, 2006 #19
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2006
  21. Apr 10, 2006 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?