Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Cliff's Journal: An Inventory of Misleading BushAdmin Quotes on a .Gov Site! 36

Journal by Cliff
When .gov sites like these start showing up, can the Independent Counsels be that far behind?

Well...yes! That particular law was encouraged to expire, and eventually did, on June 30th, 1999.

Still, it makes one wonder what the Justice Department is doing with the resonsibility it reassumed, with the death of the Independent Council Act. Why do we have a website made by the House of Representatives pointing out misleading comments by officials, that led to a war, instead of attempts at impeachments or censure for these same officials?

Hopefully the appearance of such sites means that someone is taking steps to make sure the current administration comes clean on the reasons they were made, in the first place. When such statements lead an invasion of a foreign country, in a war sold on false pretences, I would hope that someone would seek to find those responsible and make them answer to the American people as to why the trust we have place in them, to lead this country, has been so betrayed.

It's not that I want the Independent Counsel act to be reinstated, as was called for by Lieberman to investigate the Plame Affair. It has been used as a partisan weapon once too many times, with the taxpayers footing the bill of political prosecution after political prosecution. However it seems that this administration has been able to coast by on many questionable issues during its run, and in an Election Year, it is high time this administration becomes accountable for the things it has done, during its tenure in power.

Will this happen? Only time will tell...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Inventory of Misleading BushAdmin Quotes on a .Gov Site!

Comments Filter:
  • That after the republinazi's spent $44 MILLION to find a stain on a dress, I for one am all for being paritsan on this one.
    • That's nice revisionism. A friend of a White House intern brought information to the Independent Counsel that proved the President committed perjury, so he brought it to the Attorney General as per his duty, who then told him to investigate it. Reno is more to blame than the Republicans for that, sorry.
      • If I'm a revisionist, you should look in a mirror. Please explain to me what a stain on a dress had to do with Whitewater? For that matter, can someone explain to me why Whitewater was investigated in the first place?
        • I am not saying the investigation was a good thing. I am saying it is a lie to say that the Republicans were the ones behind adding Lewinsky to the investigation.
          • Three questions for you then:

            Was/Is Linda Tripp a republican?

            Doesn't Whitewater being a "bad" investigation make any results of that investigation "fruit of the poisened tree"?

            Did Clinton ever lie to get hundreds of our men and women in uniform (of which I was one, for 8 years) killed in a forign land?
            • Was/Is Linda Tripp a republican?

              Don't know, don't care. She was a nobody, as far as the party was concerned, until she brought the evidence. To say her party affiliation has any bearing on whether "the Republicans" were behind it is stupid.

              Doesn't Whitewater being a "bad" investigation make any results of that investigation "fruit of the poisened tree"?

              Maybe, but you were talking specifically about something a liberal Democrat was the responsible party for, and saying it was all the Republicans' fau
              • 1.) Tripp, as you well know I suspect, was and is a republican. She was in contact with people within the party, a publisher in particular, who was the first to encourage her to tape the conversations. To deny that she was, at a minimum a republican stooge, is to be as revisionist as possible. She was, and is a republican. She sought advice from, and then acted on the advice of, other republicans in the party.

                2.) Clinton lied about having sex with Lewinski, right? What lie is it you're refering to? My memo
                • Tripp, as you well know I suspect, was and is a republican.

                  Your suspicions are inaccurate.

                  She was in contact with people within the party, a publisher in particular, who was the first to encourage her to tape the conversations.

                  Yes, I know her publisher was in some contact with some Republicans. So what? They did it because Lewinsky had *perjured herself*, and told Tripp about it. Unless "the Republicans" forced them both to lie, I am not going to give a damn. And they didn't.

                  Clinton lied about h
  • I have a new favorite government resource.
  • ...by the fact that my Journal has become WAY more political than I ever intended it to be?
    • Nah, if it weren't for politics(and wierd games/polls/etc.) we'd quickly run outta stuff to talk about that wasn't already covered on the rest of /.
    • by Safety Cap (253500)
      This is a good thing; an informed, active electorate is the only thing that keeps a Democracy from degenerating into a Dictatorship. You're paying attention and bringing us information that we might not know about -- helping us all.

      While the majority of unwashed masses visit the fluff of the front page, the real heart and soul of /. is in the JEs.

      • by Jhon (241832)
        The problem is, in my opinion, we dont have an "informed" ACTIVE electorate. I'm just talking about those who actively take part in the voting process. Most of us don't know who our representatives are -- and we either voted FOR them or AGAINST them. Further, most of us have no clue as to the impact of voter initiatives (propositions, for example) and are only mildly aware of sound-bites we hear on the radio and/or TV. In CA, prop 56 would lost my a much larger margin had the electorate actually been IN
        • The problem is that us human animals are wired for fast twitch feedback.
          • Put your hand on the hot stove? Get immediate feedback -- won't do that again!
          • Vote some schulb into office? 2 years later, the jerk is taking your rights and running up a nice fat debt -- "let's reelect him."

          Seems to me that things would be better (or at least interesting) if we could have the vote of confidence. If our elected officials piss off enough people, they could promptly call for a VOC and then throw the bastards out, inste

          • A vote of confidence? I'm all for that! I don't see why in any Republic-masking-as-a-Democracy we don't have such, in the first place.

            There is the matter of the succession and the continuance of government if such were to happen. I mean, what happenes when the President (and Vice President) does not win his Vote of Confidence? Who steps in? Members of Cabinet (who are more likely to implement the policies of the man you just kicked out)? The last President? Someone from another party (and if another part
    • No. Please make your journals more liberal. :-)
      • The only way I could make this journal more liberal is by turning the text red, and convincing your monitor to spontaneously bleed out of its seams.

        Actually, I've been told that I'm more libertarian and less liberal -- *shrug* -- these are only labels. Most "cover-all" labels are sincerely insufficient when describing the politics for any individual, but it satisfies the human need to "pigeonhole", so....
    • Not me.

      I'm still steamed at Pudge. (See sig.)

      • Yes, and you cover it up by lying. Everyone who was following -- I assume including you -- knows you were not made a foe because of your politics. I asked you many times to stop making arguments without backing them up, and you insisted on doing so. And then when I called you on it, you lied to me and told me you never made the argument you had been making for several weeks. You were made a foe because you could not engage in a discussion responsibly.

        Even if you don't buy that -- even though everyone f
        • I asked you many times to stop making arguments without backing them up, and you insisted on doing so.

          Can you find a single example of where I had made an argument without backing it up sufficiently for you, and you complained about it, and I didn't provide additional support for my position? On the contrary, I remember quite clearly that in the thread where you decided to ban me from your journal, I produced two distinct examples of situations where the Bush administration admitted that they literally "

          • Can you find a single example of where I had made an argument without backing it up sufficiently for you, and you complained about it, and I didn't provide additional support for my position?

            I have done so several times, as every reader of our discussions well knows. I am not going to rehash it all and once again prove your lies to be lies.

            However, I will answer your questions, sorta.

            1. Why do you think the boldfaced reference to Bush's announced fiscal policies in the first statement was not included
            • I have [found arguments which js7a hadn't backed up sufficiently and pointed that out without further support from js7a] several times, as every reader of our discussions well knows. I am not going to rehash it all and once again prove your lies to be lies.

              Every reader of our discussions knows that you have done this several times?!? I can't find a single instance, and so I suspect you are just making this up. If it has happened so many times, then it would be easy for you to point out just one instan

              • I can't find a single instance

                Of course you can't: you have thinking problems, which is why you see no logical problems with your positions, even when they are pointed out to you.

                it would be easy for you to point out just one instance

                And you would just deny it says what it says, so why should I bother? You even quoted yourself saying what I said you said, and then denied you ever said it. Get a grip.

                I ask every reader of this thread to post just a few examples of the several instances of which you
                • If you don't want to read my whole post, fine. Please just tell me this:

                  How can you possibly claim that a statement in which I explicitly referred to an earlier factor involved with a temporal correlation is evidence that I lied when I said I never claimed there was only a temporal correlation?

                  As to your question about Kerry's tax policy, I would simply point you to the effectiveness of Clinton's large tax hike combined with targeted stimuli, most of which were various employer tax credits totalling a

                  • How can you possibly claim that a statement in which I explicitly referred to an earlier factor involved with a temporal correlation is evidence that I lied when I said I never claimed there was only a temporal correlation?

                    I explained this twice. You're really boring. But I will humor you, and try one last time.

                    It's a given that you believed investors didn't like Bush's policies. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had any of this discussion. But the context was me asking for *evidence* that Bush caused the
                    • How can you possibly claim that a statement in which I explicitly referred to an earlier factor involved with a temporal correlation is evidence that I lied when I said I never claimed there was
                      only a temporal correlation?
                      ... Citing your belief that investors don't like his policies is part of your argument....
                      Oh. Well, then. That sure explains it. Thanks, Pudge.

                      Sorry I'm so boring.

              • Every reader of our discussions knows that you have done this several times?!? I can't find a single instance, and so I suspect you are just making this up.

                I'm your "single instance". Appologize to Pudge now and look less like a fool. Further, read your own journal linked on your sig -- theres more than just me who's made the observations made by Pudge.

                I believe you are either incapable of rational arguments (i.e., you are stupid), or you are doing it deliberately (i.e., you are a troll). Either way, I

    • Sorry... :-) I won't do it again, I promise!
  • Is cause for alarm? Puh-leeze. This is the normal partisan bickering that has been going on for years now.

    Shouldn't you be more outraged when say, memos showing collusion between congressmen and external groups to delay judicial appointments because of current cases in the system show up?

    Perhaps that outrage should extend to the fact that the parties implicated in the memos are only yelling about "how did our memos become available?" Instead of, "well, gee, maybe we should investigate the information/a
    • Hey, you haven't happened to have come across a spare $1 billion that the Oil-for-Food program seems to have misplaced did ya?

      Sorry about that, I wasn't aware that anyone had dibs... I'll uh... give it back.
      • I suppose it's just a matter of time before we get e-mail from Kofi Anan's "cousin" trying to get into the bank account...
        • MY FRIEND I AM EMAILING YOU FOR GREAT JUSTICE. I MUST MOVE GREAT BILLIONS OUT OF A BANK ACCOUNT IN IRAQ FOR GREAT JUSTICE. I AM KOFI ANAN'S BROTHER'S COUSIN TWICE REMOVED ON THE THIRD SIDE'S BEST FRIEND'S NEPHEW, DOCTOR STRANGELOVE. I AM EMAILING YOU IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE THAT YOU WILL HELP ME MOVE THIS MONEY FROM AN ACCOUNT IN IRAQ. PLEASE EMAIL ME WITH YOUR BANK DETAILS, AND A PICTURE OF YOUR ELDEST DAUGHTER.

          THANK YOU,
          SINCERELY,
          DR. STRANGELOVE.

          cat /dev/urandom below
          ----
          Ayi3/4SXl tajemai'WlBaa
          al*uIx{
          =Q
    • by Cliff (4114) *
      Your words:
      Describe the applications of chroot. Why should you or shouldn't you use this to build "jails" for clients?
      Old? It's still happening -- how can it be old?

      With respect to your other points, I'd have no problem drumming up outrage (or counters) to your points, if you were willing to back them up with links or external citations. I'm perfectly willing to drum up and criticise the government in its abuses, no matter what party is in charge!
      • by Cliff (4114) *
        No. Those weren't your words. CURSE Windows for it's lame cut and pasting facility! I'm too used to X11 where you can highlight and cut in one nice concise action.

        The correct quote I wanted to refer to was:
        But no, let's just keep hammering the ol' "Bush lied. People died." meme.
        I will now be ridiculed in my own journal, and I deserve it. Such is life!

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...