The American people finally understand this, it is just the 32% of dead enders who still “support” the pResident who do not.

When the president said that no one anticipated the 9/11 attack despite a warning delivered to him personally a month previous, or that no one anticipated the levees would break even though there were articles in Scientific American ten years earlier on that very subject and he had a briefing on it two days before the fact, he is lying.

Thanks for making my point.

Reprinted from our Daily Kos Dairy: Karl Rove Named Anchor of ABC World News Tonight By Steve Gorman LOS ANGELES, April 27 (Reuters) - Former Bush White House aide Karl Rove will take over as anchor of the  ABC World……

Lantern Bearer

Another undeniable fact: George W. Bush made it clear that his conditions for testifying on matters of state before the peoples’ representatives, was that he not be held legally responsible for telling the truth.

On the left these days, being wrong, mistaken, or of a different opinion than the left is lying.

Looks like a strawman is all you have here. I’m talking about misrepresentations of facts, not opinions. Facts are easy to establish, such as the FACT that the current president is allergic to swearing before god and the country that he will tell the truth in any matter before the people.

When the president said that no one anticipated the 9/11 attack despite a warning delivered to him personally a month previous, or that no one anticipated the levees would break even though there were articles in Scientific American ten years earlier on that very subject and he had a briefing on it two days before the fact, he is lying.

It doesn’t matter why he is lying, whether he is so incompetent that he doesn’t KNOW the truth or whether he is just evil. If he tells us something that is not true, and we kill people because of it, we owe it to those people to find out why we were told such things.

Once again, remind me why it was so important to get Bill Clinton under oath in a matter of no importance to the republic, and why his untruthful answer to a question about a LEGAL act unrelated to the case in which he was being deposed, was more important to you than whether the current president told the truth about invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of people and spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

How many people died as a result of Clinton’s “lie” under oath? (BTW, it was not “perjury” because it was irrelevant, and immaterial to the facts under consideration. Also, the case was settled out of court, and thus the depositions were moot, as though they had never existed.) I would rather have a president who received a legal blowjob and lied about something that is none of the public’s business while leading us to peace and prosperity, to a man who is either so incompetent or evil that he takes no responsibility for his words, even though they kill countless innocents, and cause incalculable harm to the country and our standing in the world.

Why is the “truth” about Bill Clinton’s blowjob more important to you than the truth about the invasion of Iraq, or the truth about Katrina?

Repack to Pedro a few minutes later: What you  suspect is not a  fact to be offered in evidence…

One undeniable fact is that when Clinton was under oath, he lied.

Another fact is that Bush has been accused of lying about just about every issue that has come up in the past 6 years. On the left these days, being wrong, mistaken, or of a different opinion than the left is lying.
Now my own supposition: had Bush been under oath, he would now be accused endlessly of lying under oath, for all the deposition topics with which the left has a disagreement with Bush.

That’s not to say he doesn’t come up with some whoppers…yesterday, I read an article that pointed to some comments that Tony Snow made a few years back, about racism being “over” in America.

I suspect he’ll be a monumental improvement over the last guy.

Having said that, I agree with OW that Fox news is now the network that has one of it’s own in a key power position at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Fox news will now go from intolerable, to unwatchable!

JK

That’s good for a laugh, pedro. As if the righties around here (yourself especially) don’t barf up deflection more predictably than a univac computer.

Libby? Mary McCarthy!
Rove? Sandy Berger!
Republican Racists? Robert Byrd!
Republican Crimes? Chappaquiddick!
Dick Cheney? Aaron Burr!
Everything else? Clinton!

I have always maintained that clinton could have easily said  none of your business regarding the monica thing& .but instead he lied about it.

Yeah - too bad the first hundred and fifty times that the Clinton adminstration actually said that, the White House press corps just kept on asking, and in fact refused to talk about anythig else until they responded to the lewinsky situation.

Too bad that the supposed liberal shill Tim Russert hounded everyone in the Clinton administration about this for years - even after they asked him to move on to other things.

Too bad that the Reich wing media hammered on this situation for the last few years of Clinton’s presidency, and wouldn’t accept the “none of your business” answer.

Too bad that neocons’ selective memory strangely forgets all about that sort of thing, yet can remember the intimate details about where Kerry was on Christmas 1968, and what Clinton did while governor of Arkansas, among other things. Funny, that…

Come on, guys. Partisan chest-thumping aside, you gotta admit this is fishy. Divorce yourself from your ideology for a second and read that again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

ROTFLMAO

….shit, gotta clean my monitor now…

Not knowing anything about it doesn’t stop you from defending it, does it? Allow me to supply the missing detail then. As a condition of his appearance, Mr. Bush refused to be sworn (and he decided he had the right to testify with his VP at the same time, so the stories wouldn’t conflict).

I suspect some of it is presidential privelige and the assumption of truth telling.

What you “suspect” is not a “fact” to be offered in evidence, while Mr. Bush’s refusal to be sworn in is a fact that I am offering into evidence. Mr. Clinton had to swear in during his deposition in a civil matter, as the GOP chorus sang, “No man is above the law, not even the president.” Of course, as we now know, the entire object of that exercise was to get Mr. Clinton under oath and then surprise him with an irrelevant question about an unrelated (and completely legal, but embarrassing) matter where they had the goods on him.

With that background, please tell me why it was more important to swear the president in for a civil matter that had not cost the taxpayers a cent than it was to swear the president in for his testimony before Congress about events that cost the taxpayers billions.

Why was the WITNESS, in this case the president, allowed to decide whether he should be held accountable for the truthfulness of his testimony? It’s a funny thing how Clinton was put under oath in a civil matter, but President Bush, oil execs, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State don’t have to swear in before [a Republican] Congress.

You mean we get to ratchet down to 11 from the current propaganda levels?

Oh, yeah - Dugger, can you tell me when SnowJob is going to start hammering Putsch, the way Russert hammered Clinton for years and years? Is that why they removed all of SnowJob’s comments over at Little Green Fascists?

Someone break out the champagne, Save got a fact right for once.

in a matter before Congress regarding killing tens of thousands of people

This is the 9/11 Commission we’re talking about, right? Tragic as the day was, we only lost just a shade under 3,000.

I don’t know the details of his lack of being sworn in. I suspect some of it is presidential privelige and the assumption of truth telling.

I have always maintained that clinton could have easily said “none of your business” regarding the monica thing….but instead he lied about it.

I’m guessing that was why he refused to be sworn in for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Why is it so hard to get this guy to swear to tell the truth?

Give my your best guess as to why he would refuse to swear before God that his testimony to the 9/11 Commission was true. Do you believe that if Bill Clinton was required to swear to tell the truth in a civil case regarding a matter that cost the taxpayers nothing and broke no laws, George W. Bush should be required to swear that he was telling Congress the truth about invading a sovereign nation?

I didn’t think so. Can you articulate your reasoning for us? Why was it important to swear in Bill Clinton in a civil case and unimportant to swear in George W. Bush in a matter before Congress regarding killing tens of thousands of people and spending hundreds of billions of dollars?