• 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.

'President' Lies (again!) in SOTU Address

icky

New member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
Not exactly, though, it turns out.
"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...38.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

(thanks Webhead)
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You'd think with all of the deceit and lies and corruption that liberals have pointed out about this president over the years, you'd just have to think he'd be in jail or impeached or something. Hmm. :thinking I wonder why he's not? :roll:
 

t125eagle

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
384
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
anything to bring republicans down....

notice it was the secretaries that said it, not the president. it sounds really good, but its also bad, because it would indicate to our allies in the middle east that a vast majority of their income could disappear.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
To me, Bush's energy secretary and national economic adviser seemed to be more clarifying what Bush meant than refuting it. Saying reducing dependence by 75% is a rather open-ended statement that needed more information.

It's a long term goal he has and putting energy into a) alternative fuels, b)new oil sources, c)middle-east's supple d)China's raising demands for oil e)price ...all have to be taken into account. (As well as the fact that he's out of the office in '08 and who knows what the next president has in mind for a goal).

The explanation makes sense and seems to corroborate with Bush's goal.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The White House memo

Published: 2 Feb 2006
By: Gary Gibbon

Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war.



Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."


http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
I've been saying this all along that Bush started the war months before receiving permission from Congress. Which is an impeachable offense.

We ran over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets when we were telling the world that we were enforcing the "no-fly" zone. Bush needs to be impeached.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
I've been saying this all along that Bush started the war months before receiving permission from Congress. Which is an impeachable offense.

We ran over 2000 sorties dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets when we were telling the world that we were enforcing the "no-fly" zone. Bush needs to be impeached.
Hey, there's something we haven't heard in a while. Impeachment. Yeah, he should be impeached. I already asked in post #2, but why hasn't he been? :thinking
 

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:
Hey, there's something we haven't heard in a while. Impeachment. Yeah, he should be impeached. I already asked in post #2, but why hasn't he been?
Instead of being sarcastic and offering nothing new to the conversation, why don't you address the points being raised as reason for the impeachment. I mean, people are not making this stuff up.
 
M

Mickeytrout11

The President can't be impeached without a congressional vote. Which party controls Congress and the White House and, now, the Supreme Court? That would be the same one. And no matter which party it is; if the same party controls all three branches of government at the highest level, you'd better believe that there's some corruption and some un-American stuff goin' on. If we had a Democratic Congress, with a Democratic Supreme Court, and President Kerry, I'd bet that we'd have a lot of problems, too, except we couldn't have impeachment for the simple reason that Congress is the same party. Bush'd be impeached by now if the Democrats had enough in the Senate.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
'President' Lies (again!) in SOTU Address
This president has lied, the last president lied, and Bush Sr. lied...SO WHO THE "F" CARES!

Party proganda! Nothing more!
 

Pale Horse

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's a joke really. The lefties have been calling for Bush's head for years. To the point that it's all they stand for now. "I hate Bush, I hate Bush"

I'm willing to bet that 2 years into the next Republicans Presidential term they are going to realize that Bush wasn't running for re-election and the people wanted more that "I hate Bush" on the political platform.

The democratic party stands for nothing these days, they have no focus and no direction. The only thing they stand for is "I hate Bush" I repeat... Bush is not running for re-election.

They will be scratching their heads wondering what happened real soon.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Instead of being sarcastic and offering nothing new to the conversation, why don't you address the points being raised as reason for the impeachment. I mean, people are not making this stuff up.
Okay, I will address the point of impeachment. So how's that coming along, anyway?
 

Robodoon

Banned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
426
Reaction score
0
Location
Lakeport CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
icky said:
Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
Administration backs off Bush's vow to reduce Mideast oil imports
By Kevin G. Hall
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.
What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.
He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
Not exactly, though, it turns out.
"This was purely an example," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwas...38.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

(thanks Webhead)
Sad thing is we have more oil in the USA then Saudi Arabia, but Government locked it down, to create Shortage on purpose. There is no Energy Crisis, its all a game for the masses...a boogie man for us to fear so we can be manipulated.
 

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:
Okay, I will address the point of impeachment. So how's that coming along, anyway?
Good. It's a step in the right (other left) direction.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Good. It's a step in the right (other left) direction.
So answer the question. How's the impeachment coming along?
 

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:
So answer the question. How's the impeachment coming along?
Slow.........
 

Lantzolot

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
Location
Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If he's republican and president then the liberals will want him impeached, simply for being a republican.
 

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 Lantzolot
If he's republican and president then the liberals will want him impeached, simply for being a republican.
Stop lying to yourself.
 
M

Mickeytrout11

Yeah. That is completely untrue.

And if it were true, then it would explain the Republican mindset during the Clinton presidency. "Impeach Clinton! Impeach Clinton!" For what? "For lying to the American people." Well, Bush just did so. So give up on that argument while you're still only that far behind.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Mickeytrout11 said:
Yeah. That is completely untrue.

And if it were true, then it would explain the Republican mindset during the Clinton presidency. "Impeach Clinton! Impeach Clinton!" For what? "For lying to the American people." Well, Bush just did so. So give up on that argument while you're still only that far behind.
You have no idea why Clinton was impeached do you...

Hint - He wasn't impeached for "lying to the American people."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm
 
Top Bottom