So that GW Bush can't keep clear what crosses his desk is better than him deliberately lying? In other words its he's not lying he's incompetent so its OK.
If I read something, does it really matter that it came from the Nov 4, Nov 11 or Nov 18 issue of Newsweek or that, in fact, it came out of US News and World Report? If you read a lot, it would not be hard, on recollection, to get a source wrong.
Could you be the Jewish Messiah? Are you saying that you've never made a mistake in citing something? I daresay that we all do.
Perhaps! If I'm the messiah, we are all in some deep doo-doo!! Nope, not saying I've never made a mistake in citing something. But, then again, I'm not the POTUS and I'm not sending young people off to fight and possibly die in Iraq. I would hope that a POTUS who is sending young people to war would be a little more careful when he cites something as a justification for war. It's not like he's citing baseball statistics or something, ya know!
Hopefully not if you are the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Nevermind prior to premptively attacking another country! It is completely unreasonable to assume that Bush made a mistake on something this serious. As incompetant as he is, neither he nor his staff could possibly have taken such actions/justification so lightly.
If on Nov. 2nd you said you read something from August issue of TIME that talked about Nukes, and Time came out and said that they never posted such an article, then you said oh it wasn't the August issue, but the September issue, and once again TIME came out and said they didn't have such an article in that issue either, then you finally said It was from the NEWSWEEK Magazine that came out on NOV. 4th, you would be lying, and not just mistaken. The magazine you claimed you got the report from wasn't even available on Nov. 2nd when you made the statement. The first remark could well have been a mistake. I am not saying that statement was definitely a lie. But after being shamed by the first mistake you'd think he'd get it right the second time. Then he was wrong again. By the third attempted cover-up it is no longer in the realm of a mistake, but definitely a lie.
I'm going to requote Rhadamanthus If the President of the United State can't keep clear what's coming across his desk and when then I would say he and his staff are incompetent. I'm not sure which is worse deliberately lying or incompetence in leadership but either way its not a good thing.
Also it wasn't a farm report saying that farmers wanted more subsidies or something report like that. This was a claim that Iraq was 6 MONTHS FROM A NUCLEAR WEAPON. Those don't usually float by the president's desk by the hundreds or thousands.
OK I have ? s 1) when did he lie under oath. 2) Did he say we know for a fact iraq has WMDs 3) What did IAEA report say about WMDs in iraq. 4) How does this tie into the Plame case. 5) What could happen if he did lie could there be charges brought against the Administration and would there be any jail time .
1. He wasn't under oath when he lied about the nukes and the IAEA report. 2. Rumsfeld said that not only were they definitely there, but he knew where in Iraq they were, and pointed the places on a map. Bush did also lie about WMD's when he said on Polish television that the U.S. found WMD's 3. The IAEA report deals with only atomic matters, and they never said that IRaq was within 6 months of having nukes. 4. The tie in to the plame case is pretty thin. The only tie in to the plame case is that Wilson was sent over to Niger to investigate if Iraq had tried to by yellow cake Uranium for use in building nukes, in the program they supposedly had. 5. If he lied but not under oath then I don't see how charges could be brought against him. If he lied to congress then he could be impeached, and could be tried for war crimes whether he lied or not.
You will have to wait on the Libby criminal trial and the Wilson civil trial. Technically, Bush while giving his SOTU addresses lied his *ss off wrt Iraq WMD threats and this is perjury (since all speakers before Congress are required to speak the truth). Naturally, Congress exempts itself from this law/rule, making it worthless.
What is the deal with wanting to impeach every president if he doesn't agree with you? I do not agree with Bush on most of the things, but he is the elected president. He made mistakes and had many bad decisions, but the voter put him in the office. If 53% of the people want to impeach him, where were they during the 2004 election? It is not like he will be sitting on the throne for the rest of his life.
do you notice that Bush has replaced WMD with WMD materials now? Do you say cars when you just mean the parts to make a car?
can't we demand a higher standard from the fre*kin president of the united states?? especially when we wage an aggressive war with a country who has not done any harm to us, 2000 american lives are lost, thousands more are wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.. and all because your beloved president made some small mistake???
even if you take all his "lies" away, you can still have an opinion to impeach him on the fact he went against the UN in going into war, then we complain that were all by ourselves, we knew that we didnt have the support of the world also the rest of the world saw that iraq didnt have any wmd's, we even sent a crew to search, Blix stated they didnt have any wmd. but the pres/administrations decided not to believe it and went ahead anyway the troops should stay there, we should be held accountable for all the costs and any reprecussions from it. kind of like the saying "you break, you pay" and because we are in the situation, the people, who were led to believe one thing are growing in numbers in realizing " hey, whats going on" and bc there is nothing we can do about it till the next election, except cry for an impeachment
