Many remember the crocodile tears of the Republicans about the sancity of oaths which made them duty bound to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob, despite the fact that he was doing a good job of running the country and the economy. Now we see repeatedly that his administration is going out of its way to rehire known perjurers. Hopefully some of the GOP supporters right or wrong see a sort of hyprocrisy here. Poindexter: Remember him? He was President Reagan's national security adviser who was convicted in 1990 of lying to Congress, destroying official documents and obstructing congressional investigations into the Iran-Contra affair Poindexter We then have another perjurer and a pardoned (by Bush I) Iran Contra guy who incredibly has been hired to support Sharon and obstruct peace in the middle east. This is Elliot Abrams who has no expertise in the Middle East. Was a Contra guy and is on record as being against a Palestinian State. Way to go Buhies! In his testimony to Congress, the scrappy Abrams made witness history when he declared: "I never said I had no idea about most of the things you said I had no idea about." The now 54 year old Abrams also explained in his autobiography that he had to inform his young children about the headline announcing his indictment, so he told them he had to lie to Congress to protect the national interest. The then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State to Central America pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress and received two years probation and 100 hours community work Abram's Conviction We of course have Henry Kissinger. In short there is a serious case of hyprocrisy and unconcern for the truth with Bush II and gang.
Don't expect any "yeah, my party is being hypocritical," type of posts. I'd at least like to hear "it's not my fault" or "it's not the pary's fault" type of stuff, but you can expect there to be some people defending the decisions to hire these guys. Of course, Clinton is gonna come up. All I can say is, he lied about a blow job, it shouldn't have even come up. Poindexter and Abrams helped Reagan sell weapons to the Iranians. Put those on a scale and I bet the Clinton scandal gets launched into space because nothing compares to secret deals with countries like Iran. Of course, my mom and her side of the family don't care since they are from Nicaragua. Hell, my uncle may have been part of Iran Contra, being that he snuck into Nicaragua to help the contras and he sorta knows Oliver North My Uncle is a Republican by the way and that's what makes this next coincidence quite funny. He used to work with Enron. Not sure what he did or what he does today. I think he may have had something to do with oil rigs since he had a few pictures of those in his office.
Glynch, I think you're right. None of these folks (Clinton, Poindexter, Abrams, Kissinger; and I'm sure North isn't far behind -- what's he doing these days anyway?) should be allowed in the administration.
The hiring of all these folks makes you wonder seriously about the morality and the attachment to traditional concepts of American government. It is one thing to have members of your administration go bad; it is another thing to hire those who have already been disgraced.
Seems our last president set a bad precident by being a known perjurer himself. Judging from the way our government has been run the last 20 years, I guess it doesn't matter how tarnished your past is... you still qualify for a job in Washington.
I won't defend who's being hired...but there's a difference between one of the troops being a known perjurer and The President of the United States being a known perjurer.
Yaaaaaaaawn. More accusations, more smear campaigns, still no viable alternatives to the way things are being handled in Washington.... The liberal fringe is getting pretty desparate for things to attack these days.....
Agreed. He lied about a sexual affair with a subordinate in a deposition for a sexual harrassment case involving a subordinate. It is completely relevant in that type of case. To say that the issue shouldn't have been raised is ludicrous. It shows a pattern of behavior and propensity evidence is allowable in that type of case, so his previous affairs involving subordinates is discoverable. Never would have happened if he would have learned to keep his **** in his pants.
T_J: That's just lazy. This isn't a thread about policy; it's about perjury. We heard plenty of it during Clinton and if the new guy wants to hire convicted or admitted perjurers, he should hear the same. These aren't "accusations" or "smear campaigns" as you lazily suggest. They are admitted or convicted perjurers. You can't have it both ways. Ref: Yes and we've been through this many times before. Sexual harassment is a serious problem, I agree. But there are degrees of offenses. And no lie under oath regarding sexual harassment or whatever is more offensive than the one which masks secret wars in violation of Congressional resolution. Both of you (and other conservatives or Clinton-haters): You would do well to condemn bad behavior among your own, as you do in the other side. It would enhance your credibility Refman (as it has when you've done so in the past) and it would give you, T_J, your first taste of same. If you support the cops, you have to hate and condemn bad cops. If you support the church, you have to hate and condemn bad priests. And if you hate a liar, or worse a perjurer, you have to condemn them when they get by in your own party too. Max and Moniker did well to criticize Lott in that other thread. T_J did poorly to dismiss the criticism against him. That dismissal was lazy partisan behavior, as it is here.
Given the *overwhelming* quantity of new threads started by glynch, No Worries, and rimrocker for the sole purpose of criticizing the Bush Administration, I have no other choice but to exhibit "laziness" simply from a time perspective. One could make a full-time job out of merely responding to these broken records. Plus I'm trying to hurry up and leave the office early today
Jorge: Another option would be not posting when you don't have anything to add. I let plenty of threads which I disagree with go by because I don't have time or energy to reply thoughtfully. You're not required to add the Dems Suck line to each new thread started by any of the posters you mentioned. Worse, it hurts your cause. This isn't just an anti-Bush thread. Perjury bothered you guys when it was committed by a Democrat and it should bother you guys when your guy hires perjurers. If time constraints prohibit you from condemning this practice, okay. But don't try and turn it around on us. This is a legit beef and your standard Dems Suck reply is beneath you.
I never said it was. I merely responded to Oski's "it was a lie about a blow job that never should have come up" comment. I never meant to imply that perjuring yourself to Congress was any less severe. Just pointing out that Clinton's lies were also severe and the topic was fair game. I already agreed that these individuals should not be allowed to hold offices in the public trust. I honestly don't know enough about the situation to say anything stronger. Anybody who has perjured themselves should be in prison (Clinton included). From that point forward they should be barred from holding an office of the public trust.
I feel that drunk driving should be rigorously prosecuted. The penalties vary from state to state. George W. Bush was convicted and paid the fine that was prescribed by law. If somebody is caught with cocaine then they should face the penalty. Having used cocaine in the past is something that isn't a criminal confession in any state. Perjury, however is a felony in EVERY state...complete with varying jail terms.
i know i don't...mistakes like that are mistakes and aren't necessarily indicative of someone who is willing to lie, cheat and steal. but taking an oath and then lying...hell, your testimony in court in any future proceeding would be a joke...you'd be impeached left and right for that...in the same way, your subsequent oath of office would be laughable. similar analogy right now in the pete rose thing...people say, "hey there are drug users in the HOF...why is pete ousted just for gambling?" because gambling goes to the very integrity of the game...in the same way, your propensity to lie under oath goes to the very integrity of the trust relationship you have with the governed.
I don't have a problem with Bush having done Coke or having partied it up, in fact I think it makes him a better president because he is more in tune with reality than alot of the washington elite. But I do have a big problem with all these jacka$$e$ getting hired. I am a libertarian and I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect someone else in a negative manner. Perjury is extremely harmful to the entire justice system. Bill Clinton has to be one of the sleaziest cats I have ever seen, but I also know that alot of republicans are in the same boat. The people who are really to blame are the contributers are put these people in office. They pay the bill and get these people elected. Most of the time they are installing someone who will help them out financially or who they owe a favor too or who they are just friends with. I doubt it will ever stop, but like my grandpa Pappy used to say "I'll eat the ****, but I don't have to like it"
