• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

King George W. Bush

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
disneydude said:
I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).
I take it that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore and he got elected, you wouldn't consider it an annointment?

So far, it hasn't been shown that Bush has done anything that goes beyond past administrations. He is clearly not a King - his term ends in January 2009. You'll have to get over it until then.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
disneydude said:
I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).
disneydude, just ignore Connecticutter. I totally agree with you. If the law isn't helping him, he just breaks it. I have posted this muliptle times, but I must do it again because NO ONE has been able to rebut the findings made by legal professionals from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Duke, etc. Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. I just hope that either Congress or the Supreme Court holds him accountable for such.

"Other presidents did it." Yeah right. Prove it.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

These experts addressed legal doctrine (for example, when two statutes conflict, which one is given deference), Supreme Court rulings, and the legislative history in making their determination that Bush most likely violated the law.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Connecticutter said:
I take it that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore and he got elected, you wouldn't consider it an annointment?

So far, it hasn't been shown that Bush has done anything that goes beyond past administrations. He is clearly not a King - his term ends in January 2009. You'll have to get over it until then.
Ditto, that, Connecticutter. Oh, and welcome to the forum, disneydude. :2wave:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
disneydude, just ignore Connecticutter. I totally agree with you.
Ignore me? That's not in the spirit of this website.

aps said:
If the law isn't helping him, he just breaks it. I have posted this muliptle times, but I must do it again because NO ONE has been able to rebut the findings made by legal professionals from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Duke, etc. Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. I just hope that either Congress or the Supreme Court holds him accountable for such.

"Other presidents did it." Yeah right. Prove it.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf

These experts addressed legal doctrine (for example, when two statutes conflict, which one is given deference), Supreme Court rulings, and the legislative history in making their determination that Bush most likely violated the law.
They haven't proved anything. If they want to bring it to trial, they should. I'm not ignorant of these guys - I've heard of many of them, and I've even been to a panel led by Harold Koh. They are bright people, but this isn't the word of God we're talking about here.

They never concluded that our president is a monarch and needs to be impeached. They didn't even come close. They were just responding to a proposed legal defense of the DOJ. No trial has taken place. If you want one, then fine - but to declare Bush a monarch is nothing but partisan crap. Your description of the document was completely off the mark.

The closest president to a king was FDR. I know that democrats hate to hear that - but its true. The New Deal was mostly unconstitutional, until FDR changed the court. Then civil liberties were crushed during World War II. I know some of this was neccesary - but I'm just pointing it out.

aps said:
I love how those who say that Bush hasn't done anything illegal just make the conclusion without providing any evidence to substantiate their allegation. LOL

Check out these Tom Toles cartoons. They are hilarious!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...oles_main.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...&date=01092006
Well, the cartoons certainly don't go down as evidence in my book.

And Welcome to the forums, disneydude. I hope we have a lot of good discussions. :2razz:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Connecticutter said:
Ignore me? That's not in the spirit of this website.
Yeah, words like this really foster great debate: So far, it hasn't been shown that Bush has done anything that goes beyond past administrations. He is clearly not a King - his term ends in January 2009. You'll have to get over it until then. :roll:


They haven't proved anything. If they want to bring it to trial, they should. I'm not ignorant of these guys - I've heard of many of them, and I've even been to a panel led by Harold Koh. They are bright people, but this isn't the word of God we're talking about here.

They never concluded that our president is a monarch and needs to be impeached. They didn't even come close. They were just responding to a proposed legal defense of the DOJ. No trial has taken place. If you want one, then fine - but to declare Bush a monarch is nothing but partisan crap. Your description of the document was completely off the mark.
I'm not saying Bush is a monarch. Care to explain how my description was off the mark?


Well, the cartoons certainly don't go down as evidence in my book.
Did you think I was serious in posting these cartoons? Jesus--they're CARTOONS!
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
I love how those who say that Bush hasn't done anything illegal just make the conclusion without providing any evidence to substantiate their allegation.
Are you saying you want proof that something didn't happen?
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Yeah, words like this really foster great debate: So far, it hasn't been shown that Bush has done anything that goes beyond past administrations. He is clearly not a King - his term ends in January 2009. You'll have to get over it until then. :roll:
Yes, it does. What kind of a monarch is elected by the people and gives up their term in office at a set time?

aps said:
I'm not saying Bush is a monarch. Care to explain how my description was off the mark?
Sure, you claimed "Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. " The only think the document did was analyze and reject a particular defense put up by the department of justice. Your descirption does not accurately describe what the document says.

aps said:
Did you think I was serious in posting these cartoons? Jesus--they're CARTOONS!
I was only kidding.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Connecticutter said:
Sure, you claimed "Once you read this, you will know what Bush has broken the law. " The only think the document did was analyze and reject a particular defense put up by the department of justice. Your descirption does not accurately describe what the document says.
Okay, according to you it doesn't accurately describe what the document says. To me, my assessment is right on. Prior to my reading that letter, I did not have an opinion on whether Bush had broken the law. That assured me he had broken the law. And by the way, your statement of "the only thin[g] the document did was analyze and reject a particular defense put up by the department of justice," does not accurately describe parts of the document. Sure they refute the dept of justice's arguments, but it also goes into other discussions that the dept. of justice failed to address in making its argument that Bush has the authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps. Just FYI.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by KCConservative:
Are you saying you want proof that something didn't happen?
This arguement is valid if, and only if, something, in fact, did not happen. But that's the farthest thing from the truth. Because, O' consevative one, something did.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Billo_Really said:
This arguement is valid if, and only if, something, in fact, did not happen. But that's the farthest thing from the truth. Because, O' consevative one, something did.
Billo, KC has nothing to back up his blanket statement (well, his piggybacking on someone else's assertions, which he has been doing a lot of lately), so he claims that something "didn't happen." LOL Now that's the sign of a great debater. NOT.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by aps:
Billo, KC has nothing to back up his blanket statement (well, his piggybacking on someone else's assertions, which he has been doing a lot of lately), so he claims that something "didn't happen." LOL Now that's the sign of a great debater. NOT.
His lame rap is anything but news.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Bush is at war with Americanism
By DAVID MICHAEL GREEN
First published: Saturday, January 28, 2006


Forget the war on terrorism. President Bush is engaged in a full-blown war on Americanism. Ridiculous? Unthinkable? The idea that an American president could epitomize anti-Americanism is certainly counterintuitive. But it's a lot less shocking if we consider just what defines this country's core values.

And if that list includes such essentials as freedom, responsibility, justice, humanity, respect and fairness -- and doesn't it? -- if that's what it means to be American, then George Bush is indeed at war with Americanism.

Each new revelation forces patriotic Americans to reconsider how much of ourselves -- our liberties, our reputation, our dignity -- have now been sacrificed on the altar of the Bush presidency. Each week brings fresh outrages. Torture, wiretaps, planted news stories, secret prisons, one unmasked war justification after another. This country faces some very real threats, but must we give up everything that makes America, well, America in order to live safely within our borders?

As it turns out, that's a false choice anyhow, since even our security has been diminished by George Bush. The 9/11 commission has flunked him for his preparations against another attack. Meanwhile, he admits a breathtaking disinterest in Osama bin Laden, saying "I am truly not that concerned about him" and "I don't really think about him very much."

Bush he has been similarly unconcerned about North Korean nuclear proliferation on his watch, Hurricane Katrina, and the still unsolved anthrax case. Add these to his Iraq obsession, which has severely diminished our military, and American security has lessened.

For this, we've given up two centuries worth of proud honor and traditions?
For this, George Bush has traded away so much of what makes this country great that his presidency can only be described as a war on Americanism.

Consider:

Once, America stood as a proud beacon for human rights. Now we are known for the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition and torture.

Once, we stood foursquare for the rule of law. Now we demolish inconvenient agreements we once promoted -- the Geneva, nuclear nonproliferation and ABM treaties, the International Criminal Court -- and thereby encourage others to follow suit.

Once, America's word was good. Today -- after deceits ranging from WMD, to promised but withdrawn U.N. votes, to shameful lies about former football star Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan -- we are distrusted.

Once, America stood tall against colonialism. Today, with invasion excuses falling like dominoes, most of the world sees us as just another old-fashioned imperialist predator.

Once, we stood for due process of law. Now our President creates his own prisons and courts and denies the accused long sacred rights -- to habeas corpus, an attorney, a speedy trial judged by peers, knowledge of the crime charged, and more.

Once, we were a model for civil liberties. Now, Mr. Bush authorizes himself to conduct illegal wiretaps on Americans while his government monitors everyone from vegans to Quakers, then snoops in libraries to see what we're reading.

Once, we stood for press freedom. Now our tax dollars pay to plant stories and buy off journalists, here and abroad, while our President plots to blow up al Jazeera, all in the name of bringing freedom to the Mideast.

Once, we were a good neighbor. Today, our 5 percent of the world population produces 25 percent of global warming emissions, while the President scuttles the Kyoto Protocol.

For all these reasons and others, world opinion of the United States has sunk precipitously -- as well it should, for this is not the America our Founders had in mind.

And so we must ask, just what will be left of Americanism after George Bush is through with America? And, if the goal is not only preserving our lives, but also our way of life, just who is the true enemy of America and Americanism?

Surely al-Qaida is. Too bad, therefore, that the President doesn't think very much anymore about the folks who brutally attacked us on 9/11.

Surely Saddam Hussein -- who never attacked the United States and never threatened to do so -- was no such enemy, however brutal a dictator he certainly was.

But what of Mr. Bush himself? However counterintuitive, it is hard to reach but one conclusion about a President who has bankrupted America morally, fiscally, and militarily, who has alienated the world and deeply divided his own country, and who has trampled roughshod over our most sacred traditions and liberties, as if he were some sort of self-anointed king.


http://www.timesunion.com/AspStorie...ategory=OPINION&newsdate=1/28/2006&TextPage=1
George Bush is a joke.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
This arguement is valid if, and only if, something, in fact, did not happen. But that's the farthest thing from the truth. Because, O' consevative one, something did.
Exactly my point. If you make claims that something did happen (which you have just done again here), then the responsibility is on you to prove. Attempting to reverse this (asking someone to prove something didn't happen) is futile, and frankly looks like a dodge.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Billo, KC has nothing to back up his blanket statement (well, his piggybacking on someone else's assertions, which he has been doing a lot of lately), so he claims that something "didn't happen." LOL Now that's the sign of a great debater. NOT.
Couple of questions, if you don't mind:

1. What blanket statement did I make or piggyback on? Show me my quote.
2. What did I claim "didn't happen"? Show me my quote.

Take your time.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And now back on topic....

When did Bush annoint himself as King, as the article claims? I can't find that story anywhere.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by KCConservative:
Exactly my point. If you make claims that something did happen (which you have just done again here), then the responsibility is on you to prove. Attempting to reverse this (asking someone to prove something didn't happen) is futile, and frankly looks like a dodge.
And I have proven that in post #14.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
And I have proven that in post #14.
With Mr. Green's oped piece? I can see where you and he share the same opinion (Bush trampled roughshod, morally bankrupt, etc.), but that's all. Nothing is proven by his piece nor, therefore, by you.
 
Last edited:

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Thank you for the warm welcomes. Its nice to know that even if we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum we can have a civil debate.

That said....even though I consider myself liberal, there are some Republicans that I admire. For instance, even though I never voted for him I have a great deal of respect for our former mayor Richard Riordan (not exactly a conservative - but a moderate republican).

So now that I have prefaced my political idealogy, let me add to the debate.

The thing that drives me the most crazy about King George is what a previous poster said, if the laws don't support him, he just breaks it. Every legal scholar that I have read has concluded that it is clear that Bush broke the law. And it is so disingenuous of the right wing to "spin" this into a "national security issue". Its time for the Republican party to stop playing the "politics of fear" - although it may be good for their control, its not good for the country.

This current administration to me is by far the most corrupt, power-grabbing administration in the history of this country. But I have to hand it to them, they are masters at spin - but can even the most conservative person say that this is good for the U.S.?

Bush ran on a platform of "restoring integrity to the white house" but more and more he is looking like a fox in the hen house.
A bumper sticker I saw the other day sums it up perfectly: "Someone give GWB a blow-job so we can impeach him."
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
disneydude said:
"Someone give GWB a blow-job so we can impeach him."
He'd have to lie about it under oath to a grand jury. Then you might have something.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by KCConservative:
With Mr. Green's oped piece? I can see where you and he share the same opinion (Bush trampled roughshod, morally bankrupt, etc.), but that's all. Nothing is proven by his piece nor, therefore, by you.
Are you saying:
  • we are not known for the atrocities at Abu Ghraib?
  • we did not tell shameful lies about Pat Tillman?
  • that we did not demolish International agreements that were inconvenient to us?
  • we signed the Kyoto accord?
Is that what your saying?
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
disneydude said:
I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying. If George Bush has nothing to hide then he should release the records regarding the spying. However, he constantly hides behind the dogma of "an ongoing investigation" to cover up.
I guess this is what we get when our leaders become annointed rather than elected. Because George was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 he obviously thinks that he is "King" rather than "President" which in turn comes with complete power (at least in his mind).




Mr. Bush does not think he is KIng George. THats the impression that the democratic party WANTS you to believe.

Winning elections means things. Bush has gone to congress, & works with the congress.

But the democratic party like to claim "amnesia" whether it comes to the war in Iraq, or the president like ALL presidents having executive powers.

Here's the deal, & I KNOW you will not like it. The fact is the democrats despise Bush, & have done EVERYTHING possible to villainize him, & his cabinent, & all of his policies. Bush is a SYMBOL of all their party defeats!

Why? Because THEY cannot win elections anymore, & that is the pure & simple truth, & the fact that Bush USES his executive powers, & has strong convictions, & follows through generally on what he says he's going to do.

I find it humorous that people like to disparage Bush by saying he acts like a king when his final term will be up in a couple more years!:smile:

It seems to me that a power mad king would want to stay, & play king forever, & I have not seen Bush approach his senate constituents to change any laws that would enable him to be king indefinitley..huh huh.

Naw, ..its just another label by the democrats to villify Bush all the more, & to spread fear. ( the typical democratic party strategy when they are impotent)
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
disneydude said:
I find it very disheartening that George Bush thinks that he is above the law.
Despite right wing spin that is trying to make it a matter of "national security" it is clear that George Bush broke the law when he authorized domestic spying.
Either you have a really short termed memory, are too young to remember it, or are the poster child for DNC Hypocrisy! Which is it?

When in office, bill Clinton illegally gathered FBI files on EVERY GOP Senator and Representative, along with all of his political opponents, for his own personal use against them - only one of MANY Clinton scandals ending in '-gate'!

During his administration, Bill Clinton declared he had a Presidential right - the same one Bush is envoking/citing, to 'perpetrate' the same type wire tapping activities against Americans, the only difference being Clinton was not fighting terrorists at the time when he ordered it. Not only did he order wire taps, but he took it to a new level by authorizing the entry into and search of personal property - people's homes and businesses - as well as the seisure of property in these little raids, ALL WITHOUT WARRANTS EVER BEING FILED!

No, I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right, but you astonish me by making your accusations sound as if Bush was the 1st to institute such a practice/program. And you have the nerve/gall to refer to mochk the President by calling him 'King George', saying HE thinks HE is above the law.

Might I remind you:
- Clinton began his campaign for his 1st term in office by lying to America - 'I didn't inhale...' and declaring he did not protest the Viet Nam war from Russia, which was later proven to have been true. He dragged this country through illegal scandal after scandal:
- FBI files
- Ms. Clinton denying she knew that certain files even existed only to be found later in their living quarters with her finger prints all over them.
- He helped alter technology restrictions on China and assisted his Arkansas buddy provide China with the missile technology they needed to finally reach the U.S. with their nukes in exchange for millions in his campaign fund, traced directly back to the chinese military! Can YOU say 'treason'?
- He had an adulterous affair in the White House.
- He lied about it to independent counsel and to the American people on TV
- He tried to strip an American citizen, who he sexually harrassed, of her Constitutional right to a fair trial by committing a FELONY - perjury - under by lying under oath before a Federal Grand Jury to save his own a$$.
- He lied about being warned of Al Qaeda by Able Danger, as proven when Sandy Burgaler, er, Berger - one of his cabinet members, was caught stuffing classified down his pants, stealing them, taking them home (more documents were found lying around at home), and shredding many of them - all having to do with what Clinton did and did not know about Al Qaeda during his time in office. One of the truly pathetic points of interest hers is that it was almost 5 years AFTER he was out of office, and we are STILL having to endure scandals from his administration!
- Again, well after he has left office, we are hearing how he killed the investigation on Cisneros! Won't he ever frickin' GO AWAY?
- And these are only the TOP/Major scandals and political crimes/gaffes Bill Clinton Perpetrated!

So, if ANYONE ever assumed the roe of 'King' in the White house and believed he was above the constuitution and the laws in this country, it had to be the infamous pathological liar, Bill Clinton!
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
easyt65 said:
Either you have a really short termed memory, are too young to remember it, or are the poster child for DNC Hypocrisy! Which is it?

When in office, bill Clinton illegally gathered FBI files on EVERY GOP Senator and Representative, along with all of his political opponents, for his own personal use against them - only one of MANY Clinton scandals ending in '-gate'!

During his administration, Bill Clinton declared he had a Presidential right - the same one Bush is envoking/citing, to 'perpetrate' the same type wire tapping activities against Americans, the only difference being Clinton was not fighting terrorists at the time when he ordered it. Not only did he order wire taps, but he took it to a new level by authorizing the entry into and search of personal property - people's homes and businesses - as well as the seisure of property in these little raids, ALL WITHOUT WARRANTS EVER BEING FILED!

No, I do not believe that 2 wrongs make a right, but you astonish me by making your accusations sound as if Bush was the 1st to institute such a practice/program. And you have the nerve/gall to refer to mochk the President by calling him 'King George', saying HE thinks HE is above the law.

Might I remind you:
- Clinton began his campaign for his 1st term in office by lying to America - 'I didn't inhale...' and declaring he did not protest the Viet Nam war from Russia, which was later proven to have been true. He dragged this country through illegal scandal after scandal:
- FBI files
- Ms. Clinton denying she knew that certain files even existed only to be found later in their living quarters with her finger prints all over them.
- He helped alter technology restrictions on China and assisted his Arkansas buddy provide China with the missile technology they needed to finally reach the U.S. with their nukes in exchange for millions in his campaign fund, traced directly back to the chinese military! Can YOU say 'treason'?
- He had an adulterous affair in the White House.
- He lied about it to independent counsel and to the American people on TV
- He tried to strip an American citizen, who he sexually harrassed, of her Constitutional right to a fair trial by committing a FELONY - perjury - under by lying under oath before a Federal Grand Jury to save his own a$$.
- He lied about being warned of Al Qaeda by Able Danger, as proven when Sandy Burgaler, er, Berger - one of his cabinet members, was caught stuffing classified down his pants, stealing them, taking them home (more documents were found lying around at home), and shredding many of them - all having to do with what Clinton did and did not know about Al Qaeda during his time in office. One of the truly pathetic points of interest hers is that it was almost 5 years AFTER he was out of office, and we are STILL having to endure scandals from his administration!
- Again, well after he has left office, we are hearing how he killed the investigation on Cisneros! Won't he ever frickin' GO AWAY?
- And these are only the TOP/Major scandals and political crimes/gaffes Bill Clinton Perpetrated!

So, if ANYONE ever assumed the roe of 'King' in the White house and believed he was above the constuitution and the laws in this country, it had to be the infamous pathological liar, Bill Clinton!





EXCELLENT POST! :smile:
 
Top Bottom