Home > Uncategorized > "I Can Not Tell a Lie"

"I Can Not Tell a Lie"

Our nation’s first President, the original George W. was famous for saying “I can not tell a lie.” Well, according to this study, the current George W. apparently had no such trouble. Check this out:

“A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

“It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.”

  1. Brett
    January 23, 2008 at 10:25 pm

    Like I’ve said before if you haven’t watched Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War” you need to.


  2. Anonymous
    January 23, 2008 at 11:25 pm

    Ok, so now what? I’m not asking this from a right or left side, I’m asking from a human side. Thousands have died because of these lies, shouldn’t those who purposely lie and cause a death be responsible for murder? I mean, if I purposely lie about something and it causes a death, wouldn’t I be charged with something?
    Just an honest question
    Anyone out there who’s lost a loved one due to this war we were lied into?

  3. tim in morro bay
    January 24, 2008 at 12:17 am

    What the Dave forgets to mention is that the “two nonprofit journalism organizations” can hardly be imagined to be impartial. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is funded by well-known leftist, George Soros, as well as the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation — all of which are exclusively leftist in political philosophy. Even more ridiculously, the second of these “non-profit journalism organizations” shares most of its board members with the first.

  4. Anonymous
    January 24, 2008 at 4:28 am

    Dave, Dave, Dave!
    He is a lame duck President! Your hate for him is wasted! It’s over!

    And no amount of mud slinging is going to take the attention off the three train wrecks your side has running for the office.

    It’s worse than Jr High school presdient politics. All 3 are children!

    Move on Dave! Please. There is so much more you can with your blog space. Do you want some ideas?

  5. Dave Congalton
    January 24, 2008 at 5:27 am


    I’ll take your word about the Soros funding connection, but that isn’t enough to dismiss the argument.

    This is a pretty straight forward “content analysis.” You count up the number of statements a given public official has made.

    Look at the number attirbuted in this study to President Bush, for example. Are you really going to try and tell me that W. NEVER made the claim about weapons of mass destruction? Please.

    You’re borrowing a page from the Sean Hannity playbook. Anytime the left comes up with something, it’s always dimissed as being tainted by Soros money.

    But history is already writing the legacy of President Bush, starting from the controversial appointment by the Supreme Court, through his mismanagement of 9-11, his rush to war and the litany of mistakes during his second term, all culminating in the Recession that seems quickly approaching.

    Or do we try to blame that on Bill Clinton, too?

  6. Downtown Bob
    January 24, 2008 at 8:03 am

    Tim in Morro Bay: Typical right wing ploy, try to diminish the effects of shocking facts that make the administration look bad by questioning the reporting or the funding of those who do the reporting. The problem with that tactic is that it does not change the facts that have been reported. The real question the right should be asking itself is, does this change anything in how you view the Presidency of George W. Bush. If the right still thinks that George W. Bush is a great man doing a good job, they (or you if you believe it) are truly deluded.

    anonymouse: Another lame attempt to deflect attention away from the matter at hand being discussed. Do you really want to compare the primary candidates of both parties?

    The deception that this administration has engaged in over the last seven years certainly seems to fly in the face of the claim made by George W. Bush that his administration was going to “bring back dignity and respect to the White House”.

    As to “now what?”; the only remedy that can truly serve our country, punish those who have broken the law and violated the Constitution and serve as an example for future administrations, is as called for at least five times in the Constitution, impeachment. Let’s have Congress launch the impeachment hearings, have the ability to investigate without the executive branch blocking by using Executive Privilege, and then, if there is evidence of wrong doing, proceed to the Senate for a trial. If there is not any or enough evidence for a removal from office of Vice-President Cheney or President George W. Bush, then so be it. But to say that any impeachment proceedings is nothing more than a “witch hunt” is to attempt to deny justice being served.

  7. Rich from Paso
    January 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    Why is it that Bush just couldn’t have been wrong? Why is it that he had to have lied?

    The facts are that every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Hell, we know he used them on his own people, both Kurds and Shia. We know from thousands of pages of documents that they were working on restoring the Iraqi nuclear program that the Israelis blew up in 1981 when they destroyed the Osiraq Nuclear Research Facility. Saddam Hussein went out of his way to look guilty. Why can’t Bush, and the entirity of the free world’s intelligence agencies, just have been wrong?

    Of course, the Bush hating wing of the Democrat Party (the entire party by the way) and Bob, can’t focus on the future. You have a golden opportunity to elect either Cruela DeVille in Hillary Clinton or the neophyte Barak Obama. Why can’t you focus on that? Dave, for example, still feels that the Supreme Court gave Bush the election (won by 300 votes in Florida).

    Now if you want to talk about lying, let’s talk about lying. The definition of lying involves two parts. To be lying, you have to have the intent to create a false impression or perception of something. Where was the intent to deceive? Where is the proof of that? Just because Bush said 235 things that were proven to not to have been substantiated doen’t mean he was lying. If you have some secret White House memo that says something to the effect of “Hey, let’s tell some whoppers about ole Saddam Hussein so we can invade his country and steal Iraq’s oil”, I would love to see it. Were there WMDs in Iraq in 1993? Unequivically, emphatically yes. Were there WMDs in Iraq in 2003? We don’t know for sure. The evidence today says no, but then where did they go?

    Just because he was wrong doesn’t make him a liar. Say for instance, that I love animals and I think Dave is abusing one of his cats. I believe I have proof. However, upon investigation I am proven wrong. Was I lying? It depends. If I said those things because I had evidence of what appeared to be abuse, then I am acting in the best interest of the cat. But if I made the charge because I wanted to get Dave fired from KVEC or to slander his good name, then I would be a liar. Another example: Say I cheat on my wife. I know I cheated because, after all, I was there. And let’s say that someone discovers that fact. I get on TV, wag my finger at them and say, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Then, I con my power-mad wife into also going on national TV to proclaim my innocence and accuse all of my accusers of conspiring to destroy me. Then I go before a judge and tell the same lie again. Only, in the end, I am prove to have been a complete liar, found guilty of perjury and even lost my law license over it. Well, that is exactly what Bill Clinton did. All you liberals say, “Well, everyone lies about sex.” I don’t; never had to because I never put myself into that position.

    Here is what the new Republican mantra should be: “Everyone lies about WMDs.” After all, Hillary Clinton told the Code Pinko babes that her 10 year of dealing with Saddam Hussein made the invasion of Iraq necessary. She can pull a John F’n Kerry all she wants and flip-flop on voting against the war after she was for it, but the truth is she voted to invade Iraq based not on the so-called lies that the Bush administration told her, but on her ten years of experience. She let’s impeach Hillary too. Actually yes, let’s do that.

    As an aside: Hillary Clinton either knew the truth about Monica and lied, too, or she is so dumb that she bought the lie, repeated the lie, and then stayed with Bill after his lie was proven to be a lie. That, and about a dozen other reasons, makes Hillary Clinton the wrong answer for America like 17 is the wrong answer to the question “Why is the sky blue?”

    This study hasn’t changed my mind about Bush. My mind was made up that Bush is a mediocre president at best. Not because of Iraq, but because of his support for the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill. But if being wrong about WMDs and Al Qaida being in Iraq is equal to lying then Bill Clinton should have been convicted and removed from office because that man really did lie. We know this because he was found guilty of perjury and lost his license over Monica. (Don’t get all pissy with me, Bob. Dave is the one that brought up Clinton.)

  8. truth seeker
    January 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    Check out these lies! Great topic Dave!

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
    — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
    — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
    — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
    — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
    — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
    — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
    — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

  9. Anonymous
    January 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    I think what’s interesting is that the left constantly paints GWB as a moron, an idiot, incapable of thinking for himself. But when it comes to the WMD issue, he’s not wrong, he’s a genius that was able to con most of Congress and the American people into going to war.

    So which is it?

  10. Hill-Billy
    January 24, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    Great post Truth Seeker. You di however forget a couple…

    “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”

    “That depends on what the meaning of is, is..”

  11. Anonymous
    January 24, 2008 at 6:56 pm

    About GWB. Isn’t it interesting the same “lies” uttered by him were uttered by many in Congress and the White House before GWB became Pres. Congress and the White House also had the same info as GWB had and supported him going to war. Hate will get no one any where, but facts might, and the changes have done so in Iraq, and hopefully they will continue.


  12. Dave Congalton
    January 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm


    Yes, and Clinton was impeached because of his lies.

    And I don’t recall nearly 4000 American soldiers dying because of a blowjob in the Oval Office, do you?

  13. jerrydinaz
    January 24, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    I have seen you sleaze out before but this latest outrage takes the cake!

    Have you no more responsibility in you as a journalist than to be as flippant as you were in your post! Shame on you!

    How dare you throw a generation of our precious children under the buss to make your point about how much you hate Bush!

    This so-called “innocent blowjob” has put an entire generation at risk of so many things I can’t list them here. They are innocent and your Bubba blowjob scandal has taken its toll deeply on these children

    I respectfully ask that you apologize for you comment and remove it from this blog!

    How dare you diminish the lives of brave soldiers by mentioning their legacy in the same sentence you mention Bill Clinton’s blowjob! HOW DARE YOU!

    If you read anything of this article at least read the last paragraph!

    The Sleazy Clinton Legacy
    By Cliff Kincaid
    October 18, 2005

    . . . “private morality” (or immorality, in his case) “can have profound public consequences.”

    The Washington Post ran a story on September 16 about oral sex being prevalent among teens, citing a new study by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). The story by Laura Sessions Stepp quoted Kristin Moore of a group called Child Trends as saying, “If a substantial number of young people are having oral sex, as these numbers indicate, this is a big concern.” But why was this happening?

    It just so happened that a former U.S. president by the name of Bill Clinton was in the news at the same time, hosting a “Global Initiative” featuring media top brass such as Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation. Clinton, who had oral sex performed on him by a White House intern not much different in age than his own daughter, might have some relationship to that other news item.

    The Post reported the data “indicate that, unlike their parents’ generation, many young people-particularly those from middle- and upper-income white families-do not consider oral sex to be serious.” But why?

    The Illinois Family Institute had the obvious answer that was not so obvious to the pro-Clinton liberals at the Post: President Bill Clinton had a role in encouraging this unfortunate trend among young people when it was revealed that he had engaged in sleazy immoral behavior with a White House intern. The institute noted that this shows that “private morality” (or immorality, in his case) “can have profound public consequences.”

    “It was Clinton’s escapades with Monica Lewinsky that made oral sex a household topic in 1998. The teens targeted in the NCHS survey were between 8 and 12 years old when the story was being discussed daily on television and radio.

    “There is no doubt that the popularity of the topic at the time, coupled with Clinton’s insistence that he did not have sex with Lewinsky, helped to contribute to the attitudes of many of today’s teenagers.”

  14. Dave Congalton
    January 24, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Nice attempt, Jerry, but my argument stands. By any criteria you want, the Clinton administration was better, more effective, more popular than Bush.

    And the bottom line remains — for all that did or did not happen between Bill and Monica, NOBODY DIED. Not a single U.S. soldier.

    And despite this scandal and his impeachment, Clinton’s popularity remained in the high ’50s.

    Bush hasn’t been that popular in years.

    The facts, sadly, speak for themsevles.

  15. tim in morro bay
    January 24, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Soros is losing his grip, and this is a desperate attempt to indirectly hit Gen. Petraeus before his return trip to Congress. I hope Hillary and friends are not too busy campaigning to attend.

  16. Rich from Paso
    January 24, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    LBJ flat out lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that cost America over 45,000 soldiers their lives (I’ll be nice and not credit him with all of the lives lost in Vietnam) and he wasn’t impeached.

    Again there is no porportionality to anything the left says about the human costs of this war. Yes, 20,000 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, but 304,000 were wounded in Vietnam. Vietnam averaged about 4,500 dead per year; Iraq had averaged about 775 a year, but that average has the potential to drop dramatically with the success of The Surge.

    LBJ didn’t just lie about Vietnam. He lied about the cost of the Great Society that has cost America $6 trillion. Medicare was supposed to cost only $12 billion in 1990, in reality it costs $64 billion. After the Great Society, we have more people in poverty now than before the programs were inacted. The percentage of Americans is exactly the same as it was in 1965, only there are 100 million more Americans now. The black family has been utterly devestated by these liberal feel good programs. But if not for the money that we have wasted on these social programs, think of all of the good that could have been done for America. We could be flying around in electric air cars, totally off of fossil fuels. We could be totally debt-free as a nation. We would probably not have any truly poor people in America because they would not have been crippled by the narcotic of government handouts. We would have colonies, not colony, on the moon. We would have to absorb Canada to handle all of the people flocking to America’s shores to be a part of the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Of course, all of our oppulance and prosperity would tick off the Islamofascists, but they would be unable to do anything about it since we would have cut off their petro-terrorism funding channels when we went off of a petro-based economy. Furthermore, our military would be an undeniable force for good with our inexhaustable supplies and quantum-leap ahead technologies that $6 trillion would have paid for. Who knows? Probably George W. Bush wouldn’t be president right now because the stars would line up differently after Reagan.

    Preposterous? Just as preposterous as all of the carping and whinning from the left about the $1 billion a month spending in Iraq.

    On balance, the lies of Lyndon Banes Johnson has cost America a ton more in human and monetary treasures than any of the lies George W. Bush may or may not have told.

  17. Dave Congalton
    January 25, 2008 at 5:15 am

    Saddam Hussein initially didn’t think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

    Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

    Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam’s sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

    “He told me he initially miscalculated… President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998…a four-day aerial attack,” says Piro. “He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack.” “He didn’t believe the U.S. would invade?” asks Pelley, “No, not initially,” answers Piro.

    Once the invasion was certain, says Piro, Saddam asked his generals if they could hold the invaders for two weeks. “And at that point, it would go into what he called the secret war,” Piro tells Pelley. But Piro isn’t convinced that the insurgency was Saddam’s plan. “Well, he would like to take credit for the insurgency,” says Piro.

    Saddam still wouldn’t admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, “For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” he tells Pelley.

  18. Rich from Paso
    January 25, 2008 at 8:58 am

    What gave Saddam the false impression that Bush wouldn’t invade over MWDs? Obviously, he felt that Bush would be just as weak as Clinton with another 4-day Desert Fox bombing campaign or George W. Bush would be as resolute as George H. W. Bush and withdraw without occupying the country, ala Desert Storm. This FBI agent is saying the same things I said nearly three years ago. I stated that the WMDs, particularly the nuclear program, was more posturing to look tough to the world. The FBI agent agrees with me and the rest of us that Saddam Hussein kept up his charade so long that eventually it cost him his life.

    So again the question is: Who lied first? Saddam about having WMDs or Bush for saying Saddam had WMDs. If Saddam lied first then Bush told the truth as Saddam portrayed it. If Bush lied first, then what did Saddam Hussein kill all those Kurds and Shiites with? Harsh language? That last post has done more to undermine the validity of George Soros’ study than anything else we have said here.

  19. Anonymous
    January 25, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    First you post a radical left soros report slamming Bush (which has been discredited even by your own left leaning media), Then you defend the slime ball bubbah who was the only elected president ever impeached, and who had sex with a girl the same age as his daughter (which sickens all “normal” people).

    Then you back saddam for his actions quoting 60 minutes another tool of the left.

    I gotta ask…Dave, have you no shame? Have you lost it that bad?
    Really man! You gotta rethink this if you want to salvage the last drop of credibility you may have left.

    This hate of Bush has altered your personality so radically I am not sure anything short of a full-blown intervention can save you from yourself.

    The surge is working and you hate that. How incredibly sad!
    America is safe after 9-11 and you pooh pooh it! Brave men & women are fighting for your safety and the freedom from the radical islam religion and you couldn’t, care less.

    “Home Town Radio” has become “Dave Town” radio/blog. A tool of the radical socialist left and you dig the hole deeper and deeper every post.

    Take a step back and rethink this. I implore you, for your own good. If you continue down this destructive path it may be in fact the people kicking you to the curb may be the shocking wake up call you have been in denial of.

  20. HIll-Billy
    January 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm


    I refer you to Jerry Diaz. Innocent? Do you have any daughters, nieces, etc? You will do and say anything to protect the Clinton’s. Their damage is on-going and will be for generations. What a great example you set to our youth. You ahve also defended lieing to congress, cpurts and the american people.

    Retact you last irresponsible statement.

  21. Dave Congalton
    January 25, 2008 at 6:15 pm


    4000 dead American soldiers, thousands of dead innocent Iraqi civilians under Bush. Heading for recession.

    Sex between consenting adults under Clinton. Great economy. Good times.

    I say let’s get President Bush an intern. Fast!

  22. Anonymous
    January 26, 2008 at 1:27 am

    So Dave,
    Are we clear? You are supporting and encouraging sex outside of marriage?

    be clear…this one will haunt you for a long time…

    You’re blowing it Dave.
    Get back to center. This crap ain’t selling.

  23. Rich from Paso
    January 26, 2008 at 6:15 am

    Saying that a blowjob for Bush would save 4000 lives is the most infantile and irresponsible thing you have ever said on this blog. It also proves Jerry’s point that you all have a hatred of Bush that borders on the irrational. This hatred has warped your sensibilities and undermines your credibility.


  24. greengirl
    January 26, 2008 at 7:09 am

    I’m confused, Dave, and hope that you can help me…..
    Why does the right wing care more about what happens in the bedroom than what happens in the war room?

    As conservative as I am when it comes to my children’s sexual purity, I’d rather hand my daughter over to Bill Clinton than see her enlist in our armed forces. What a sad reality for this patriot. Shame on the Bush Administration for truly abusing our children to further their own selfish interests.

  25. Dave Congalton
    January 26, 2008 at 7:21 am


    The comments are this thread are pretty amazing. Of course, it’s predictable that it all comes from the Hate-Clinton crowd.

    Every single time — EVERY SINGLE TIME — I post an article about President Bush, it only takes about 30 seconds for one of you to throw Bill Clinton in my face. Typical kneejerk response. What about Clinton? What about Clinton?

    OK. What about Clinton? The Anonymous Posters seize the moment to always remind me how much I apparently hate George Bush.

    But no more than any of you apparently hate Bill Clinton. Why is your attitude any more justified than mine?

    By any standard — ANY STANDARD — Bill Clinton was a more effective president than Bush.

    But those of you who hate Clinton are repulsed by the idea that this guy could be so beloved, leaving office with a 57% popularity rating, despite having been impeached, but leaving our budget in good shape and reasonably respected around the world.

    Yes, he screwed up on many levels and never met his potential as a president, especially not given his obvious intelligence.

    But no U.S. president in modern history has had such a disasterous second term as Bush. one mistake after another, culminating in bringing us to the verge of recession.

    No less a Republican that Peggy Noonan, writing in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal made this exact quote: “George Bush has destroyed the Republican Party.”

    There is no a single Republican running for President today who talks about continuing the policies of George W. Bush. Everyone distances themselves from this guy.

    So, back to my original point, which was made in response to yet another Clinton-hater, quick to compare Bush to Clinton: How many U.S. soldiers died under Clinton? How many innocent civilians died under Clinton?

    Now compare that to the damage done by the policies of the Bush administration. It is a completely legitimate comparison that Clinton-Haters can’t answer so you attack me instead of defending your guy.

    I’m not a big Bill Clinton fan and I certainly didn’t approve of what he did with and to Monica Lewinsky. But that was consensual sex between two adults.

    Dead soldiers. A military stretched to the bone. A surge that is beginning to sputter. Recession at home. A country divided.

    Looks like another Clinton is going to have to take over the White House and clean up another Bush mess. History repeats itself.

  26. Rich from Paso
    January 26, 2008 at 10:27 am

    I don’t “hate” Clinton, Dave, I just do not condone their win-at-all-cost campaigning, their self-serving self-promotion, their unrepentant socialism, their outright lies about their record and the record of others. As much as I do not want Hillary Clinton in the White House, I don’t want Bill back there either. He needs to shut up and go away like good ex-presidents should do. He is campaigning for a third term through Hillary. I don’t hate the Clintons; I do loathe all they represent, the very worst of Liberalism and the Democrat Party. Hilliary Clinton has ZERO record of anything beyond 6 years in the Senate. Hillary claims to have 35 years of experience. At what? The only thing she has experience at is following Bill Clinton around from Arkansas governor to the presidency. There was 12 years of First Lady of Arkansas and 8 years as First Lady of the US. She claims to have experience. With what? During her Hillary-care debacale, a consultant hired to examine the proposed program stated that at no time outside of a war has the federal government attempted to seize that much of the U.S. economy. He went on to state that there is no proof that the proposed Hillary Healthcare program would be able to deliver ANY of the promises made by Hillary Clinton, and there was great danger of making the state of healthcare in America worse. Putting the fact that Hillary Clinton tacitly condones Bill’s dalliances with other women by staying with him aside, the eight years of Clinton has been rewritten more times than I can count to omit or blunt every negative that came up about them during that time. People have forgotten about Whitewater, where dozens of families’ homes were foreclosed after missing as few as one single payment on their property. What about all of the deaths that happened inside the Clinton Administration? Do the names Vince Foster and Ron Brown ring any names?

    Bill Clinton, with the complicity of the MSM, has rewritten his record with relation to Osama bin Laden. One months after Bill took office, OBL orchestrated the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Some people were tried and convicted but Osama bin Laden, the mastermind and genesis of the plot, remained free. Osama bin Laden was further emboldened by Clinton’s weakness and lack of resolve under fire when he pulled the US out of Somalia after the Blackhawk Down incident. He botched the peacekeeping mission by ordering the mission creep of waging war on the warlords. bin Laden felt that the US was a paper tiger and had no stomach for war after what Bill Clinton did. There was the opportunity for Clinton to eliminate the problem OBL for good, but he failed to take the opportunity given. There was the genocide in Rwanda that Clinton chose to sit on his hands over. There were the bombings in Africa and Saudi Arabia with no justice brought against any of those perpetrators until Bush came to office. Clinton’s tenure was neatly bookended with the bombing of the USS Cole, where 17 soldiers died. It wasn’t until Bush was “appointed” as you say to bring those guys to justice. To count: the Clinton Administration actions or inactions cost 18 dead and 57 wounded in Somalia, 223 dead and 4085 wounded at our Afican embassies, 19 servicemen died and 372 were wounded at the Khobar Towers, and 17 dead and 37 wounded on the USS Cole. Also, I share culpabiltiy with Clinton for the 2,750 9/11 victims with Bush because the planning and preparation for the attacks also occurred on Clinton’s watch. All total; 277 dead and 4,446 wounded during the Clinton Administration. The worst thing about these figures is that they all died for nothing. No real or perceived blaze of glory, not in self defense under fire (for the most part). Most died as helpless victims unaware of the schemes of those that wished them dead. Bin Laden remained free to strike America, things got worse in Somalia, not better, the peoples of Sudan and Afghanistan saw the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and safe havens for Al Qaida. There was nothing that Bill Clinton did to “move the ball” to make the world a better place and in a real sensse made George Bush’s job harder by ignoring the problems of rising islamic fundamentalism during his watch. Speaking of watch: All Hillary did was watch all this go on during his husband’s two terms. She wants us to believe that she got vicarious experience through her marriage to Bill. You mentioned Bill’s obvious intelligence? Yeah, he was a real genius for doing Monica in the Oval Office and then getting caught. Hell, give him the Nobel Prize for physics for that one. Last point on Hillary: she did agree vehemontly with Bush on the rationales to go to war in Iraq. Several months ago, I posted the link to the video where she told off Code Pink, much to their shagrin. She cited her experience with dealing with Saddam during her husband’s term in office, not Bush’s so-called lies. If Bush’s “lies” are enough to get him impeached, then Hillary’s reasoned and rational conclusion that going to war in Iraq was necessary beyond the Bush administration’s assertions, should be enough to make her ineligable for her party’s nomination.

    What about Obama for president, Dave? He has more legislative experience than Hillary does. He has the same type of legal experience she does. He didn’t botch the nationalization of our healthcare system and his last name isn’t “Clinton”. In this case, paraphrase an old saying, I would go with the devil I don’t know then the devils I do know in the Clintons. What about all of the race-baiting going on from Bill and Hillary and all of their surrogates against Obama? You want that back in the White House? I would no more support Jeb Bush for the presidency than you should support Hillary. We need new blood in the presidency. The last thing America needs is another four years of anyone named Bush or Clinton.

    Look Dave, you don’t like hearing about the evils of Clinton, then don’t bring him up as a counter to the policies of Bush. You bring it on yourself.

  27. Dave Congalton
    January 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm


    Believe me, I am not that huge of a Clinton fan, especially not given the way they’re both behavioring in this current presidential campaign.

    But every time I tried to critique the current Bush administration, the Right tries to deflect criticism by throwing Clinton in my face, as if that somehow diminishes what is happening in the current White House.

    If I had to vote for any of the candidates on February 5th, I’d probably vote for McCain. I gave $$$ to Obama, just because I wanted an alternative to Hillary. He doesn’t seem to have the experience I think we need in the White House. If my choices come down to Hillary vs. McCain, I’ll have to actually pay attention during the campaign and figure out whom to vote for, but McCain is a credible candidate to me, despite how much I disagree with him on certain social issues.

    But I will hold this current president accountable for the lies and deceptions and consequences of his foreign policy. Even Republicans are turning on this guy, distancing themselves from his administration.

    So when I bring up Iraq, I don’t want Monica thrown in my face. When that happens, I throw the 4000 dead soldiers in your face. It’s the only way I know to drive the point home.

  28. Anonymous
    January 26, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Read it & weap Dave…Your guy is a slime ball! The worst president ever. Nothing you say or do can change that! read on…

    Bill Clinton: Narcissistic, Sociopathic, Pathological Liar. This is news?
    In a highly predictable, carefully pre-planned “spontaneous” explosion of self-righteous indignation, a smug Bill Clinton unloaded on FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace yesterday. With a pitiful display of lip-biting, finger-pointing, nostril flaring, lying reminiscent of his famous statement that he “did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,” the blue haired, red-faced, beady-eyed, “Bubba 1” (his Secret Service nickname)could hardly contain himself as he awaited Chris Wallace’s first question about his administration’s record on fighting terrorism. When it came, Clinton pounced unleashing a carefully rehearsed verbal attack like those which so typified his entire administration when reacting to any criticism.

    The Clinton’s have made their careers by attacking anyone who questioned their policies or criticized their behavior, so there should be no surprise at this “outburst” of carefully orchestrated anger. The only people gullible enough to believe that this outrageous display was a “spontaneous” response to Wallace’s interrogation are those who have always been foolish enough to believe Clinton’s lies. It reeks of the same “spontaneity” that Lloyd Bentsen exhibited in his carefully planned attack against Dan Quayle in the 1992 Vice-Presidential debate. The Clinton machine raised personal attack and smear from a rarely used negative campaign tactic to the major art form of Democrat politics.

    Gennifer Flowers was subjected to the full bore Clinton attack machine when she made her 12 year affair with then Governor Bill Clinton public and came forward with tapes substantiating her claim. Under Hillary’s direction, James “the Lizard” Carville and George “Staphlycoccus” Stephanopoulos engaged in a smear attack against Ms. Flowers, accusing her of lying to the court and of doctoring the highly compromising tapes which she had of Bill Clinton discussing the intimate details of their relationship.

    Then there was Paula Jones who was immediately labeled “trailer trash” by James Carville. Of course Carville should have known what trailer trash truly was because he was working for the iconic trailer trash couple in Bill and Hillary. Their behavior from the beginning of his campaign for Governor to his groping of women in the White House to their looting of the White House art and furniture collection following President Bush’s election to office was exemplary of “trailer trash.”

    Let us also not forget Linda Tripp who was immediately attacked as betraying a friend and whose physical appearance was the primary subject of large scale attacks by the Clinton machine and the various Friends of Bill (FOB) in the press and among the Hollywood “Elite.” Other victims of the FOB attack machine included long time supporter and friend Katherine Willey and Democrat campaign worker Juanita Broaddrick whose rape accusations, had they been made against a Republican politician would have been the cause celebre of the feminist movement, but because those claims came against Bubba, were denigrated, ignored, and glossed over by the members of NOW and the entire feminist movement.

    Other examples of the Clinton attack machine include the the 900 FBI files used in the preparation of an “enemies list,” and of course the use of the IRS in investigating political organizations which expressed opposition to Clinton policies. Those on the Left are fond of portraying Karl Rove as this Machiavellian master of political dirty tricks, personal attack and character assassination. Even Bill himself couldn’t resist bringing the “Demon” Karl Rove into the conversation. Whatever Karl Rove has done and his greatest sin is using Democrat’s own words to skewer them, he has always been a piker compared to the Clinton attack machine.

    The lies spewing from the mouth of our former Commander in Chief were legion. The sad truth about Bill Clinton is that if his lips are moving then it’s a good bet he is lying. He believes in no higher authority than himself. He is not just a sociopath, he is the definitive sociopath, and Hillary is his moral twin. “Wealth and Power at any cost” is their creed and Machiavelli’s The Prince is their bible. His claim that those who are now accusing that he didn’t do enough to pursue Osama Bin Laden were saying the he was “obsessed” with Bin Laden is a complete re-write of history. The Republicans were fully on board with Bill Clinton at the time and very little criticism was launched at him by the Republican leadership. The “Wag the Dog” references were made by his friends in the press.

    Bill Clinton suffers from mythomania and it is pathological. He has an overwhelming compulsion to build himself up with lies and distortions. It doesn’t matter that the sources he cites belie his claims, he believes his lies to be the absolute truth. He has told himself these lies so often that they have become his truth. He has a paranoiac’s need for enemies against whom he can rail and whom he can accuse of causing his difficulties. It is this pathological need for enemies and the need for justification of his actions which is most revealing of his personality.

    Bill Clinton knows deep down inside that he failed miserably as a President, both morally and in defending the nation and this guilt consumes him. The guilt is not that he failed the American people, as I said he is a sociopath and recognizes no higher need than to serve himself, the guilt is over the fact that he failed to live up to his own self-image. He believes himself to be the greatest man ever to be elected to the White House and as such his failure to succeed against Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, his failure to capture Bin Laden when Sudan offered to surrender him, eats him up. He knows he failed and so he needs enemies on which to blame his failures-neocons, the FBI, the CIA, Republicans, all are legitimate targets for his ire as he seeks justification for his abject failures.

    Bill Clinton’s lies were numerous and unabashed and the information refuting his claims is voluminous. Bill Clinton chides us to read Richard Clark’s book Against All Enemies, implying that we will find the truth about Bubba’s conduct in it and he is correct. The truth of Clark’s book is that it completely contradicts what the former President claimed Sunday. Clark also gave a background briefing to Jim Angle or FOX News in August of 2002 in which he directly contradicts Bill Clinton’s claims of having an existing plan to combat Al Qaeda which his administration passed on to the incoming Bush Administration.

    Look for more and more individuals like Michael Scheuer, a retired 22 year veteran CIA analyst and well known critic of the Bush Administration, to come forward and contradict what the former President claimed yesterday. Scheuer claimed in an interview today that Bill Clinton was given 7 or 8 opportunities to get Bin Laden and refused to pull the trigger every time. That is exactly the opposite of what the mendacious former President stated.

    The Democrats are desperate to re-write history and salvage the tainted legacies of both Jimmy Carter, and Bubba Clinton, and both former Presidents are doing their best to help them, but certainly in this case Bill Clinton, as was so common in his administration, has fumbled the ball. His tirade Sunday was more like a child throwing a temper tantrum than a reasoned defense of his [non] efforts to fight terrorism during his presidency.

    Bill Clinton never aspired to be President of the United States out of some chimerical noble calling to serve the people. What inspired Bill Clinton then and still inspires his aspirations is ego. For Bill Clinton Sunday’s performance was not about the nation, it was not about the Republicans, it was not even about Chris Wallace; it was all about Bill.

    It always has been.

  29. tim in morro bay
    January 26, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    If you look at the thread Dave brings up Clinton before anyone else.

  30. Dave Congalton
    January 26, 2008 at 6:13 pm


    Nice try, but you’re taking my comments out of context.

    When I mentioned Clinton in my first post, it was a comment about the tendency of Clinton-Haters to defend Bush by bringing up comparisons.

    And sure enough, scroll down about two posts further and you come to “Truth Seeker” who posts a list of lies….by Bill Clinton, all dealing with sex.

    It never fails.

  31. Rich from Paso
    January 27, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Lies are lies, Dave. Whether it was about consentual sex between two adults or rationale to invade a country. Here is something else to consider: if Clinton would lie over something small, don’t you think he would lie ove something big?

    Once again, because maybe you missed it, Hillary agreed with Bush that the invasion of Iraq was justified. She told Code Pink that her 8 years of “expeience” with Saddam Hussein. Watch it here, if you missed it the first time. (Also note just how kooky the Code Pink supports sound when Hillary disses them). If Bush’s lies that led us to an unjust war (among other thing of course) is enough to make Bush the worst president in that last 25 years, then Hillary coming to the same conclusion but stating to one of her liberal constituents that she got there independant of Bush should be enough to disqualify her from the presidency. But I forget, Hillary doesn’t lie, she just doesn’t know anything. Remember when Billy Shaheen accused Obama of dealing drugs when he was a kid? Hillary disavowed any knowledge of it. Same goes for Bob Kerry saying Barak Huseein Obama every time he mentions the guy. You talk about holding Bush accountable? You should be holding Hillary accountable for her actions and the actions of her campaign now.

    On the other hand, I don’t like McCain mus either. When Michele Dostert and I agree that the immigration bill was bad news (albeit from divert POVs) then something is really wrong here. Furthermore, you should not be for McCain if you are against Bush on the Iraq War. McCain is the largest supporter of the Iraq War Bush has. McCain abridged your first amendment rights with McCain-Feingold. McCain is still tainted in my book with his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. As a Republican, he is a bad candidate because he voted twice against Bush’s tax cuts. As a liberal, you should be against him because he now wants to make them permanent. As a military man, I respect his service and the sacrifices he made while he served to include his 5 and half years in a POW camp. But as a politician he is terrible.

    I would like to see an Obama versus Romney campaign. You would have two new faces each with new ideas on where we go from here. Romney actually got the liberal dominated Massachusetts legislature, so he can work with Democrats. He’s not in favor of “universal health care”, but he did pass the individual mandate, whereby the insurance companies will create packsages more cheaply for those at the bottom rungs that they will be able to afford. Plus I think that he is also in favor of nationwide competition instead of the state by state we have now. Romney is a proven cheif executive; all of the rest, except Guiliani and Huckabee, are senators. Can’t throw Bush at me here because Clinton was a governor too.

    You say Hillary has experience? Please do me this favor and detail what experiences she has. I would love to see that list.

  32. Anonymous
    January 27, 2008 at 4:30 am

    Well dave,
    You can make fun of it all you want…But while Bubba was getting his knob polished in the Oval office by a girl the same age as his daughter he let 4 documented opportunities to egt binladen slip through his fingers…thus causing the deaths of over 3000 innocent civilians in 9-11.

    Ya just got it all wrong Dave but then we have been trying to show you that for years now.

    3000 deaths + a blowjob is ok by Dave.

    4000 brave soldiers protecting your lefty ass = our President is a liar.

    This hate thing has you all you turned inside out. You simply are not seeing things in their proper perspective.

  33. Dave Congalton
    January 27, 2008 at 5:11 am

    Anonymous —

    Congratulations — you win the award for DUMBEST/WEAKEST ARGUMENT ever posted on the history of this blog. Your line of reasoning is um, uh, amazing.

    Rich —

    I appreciate the effort you put into your post, but you really need to go back and reread my previous analysis. I said (1) I’m not a fan of either Clinton and (2) if the election was held today, I’D VOTE FOR McCAIN.

    Now November is a long way off and anything could change, but for now, this moment, McCain is my guy. I’m not some sort of lockstep Leftie that these Anonymous Clinton-Haters try to paint me. I look for the best person in each election.

    In terms of my comparison of Bush and Clinton, my point remains: When the Clinton-Haters keep dragginf up the past, they ignore the debate on the present. We should be discussing President Bush as much as possible and hopefully learn from his mistakes.

  34. Rich from Paso
    January 27, 2008 at 6:31 am

    I agree that to completely focus on Monica Lewinsky overstates the event on an order of magnitude, but it is there none the less.

    I appreciate you looking toward the Republican party for your candidate. Unfortunately, I don’t think you are looking far enough right. McCain talks a good game, but like Hillary and Obama, what has he done to solve ANY problems? For the record, McCain-Feingold made that problem WORSE. You may not be in lockstep with the rest of the Democrat Party, but I think it is very telling when you, a life long liberal Democrat, is willing to go Republican right now over Clinton and Obama. The “Democratic land slide” of 2008 may well be overstated by Democrats as wishfull thinking.

    To be honest with you, I am treating Bush like the common cold: drink plenty of fluids, get lots of rest and very soon it will pass, just like Bush’s presidency. As I said, I was done with Bush when he supported the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty debacle, one the reasons why I won’t vote for McCain.

  35. Downtown Bob
    January 27, 2008 at 6:40 am

    Dave: Your attempts to keep the discussion on point is admirable, but the kool-aid drinkers on the right will doing anything to divert the conversation about how bad President Bush is doing. Those extreme devotees cannot get it through their heads that when someone questions the actions, reasons or results of the President, it does necessarily mean that there is a strong dislike (or hate, as they like to accuse of everyone); the absolute hate the right feels for everything Clinton seems to have altered their thinking processes so as to allow them to believe that anyone who disagrees with their deeply held beliefs must be someone who feels equally as venomous in their opposition. So much for the psycho babble.
    The issue here isn’t about whether the lies told by President Bush to lead our country into an illegal war somehow equals anything President Clinton may have lied about; the question is, is anything going to be done about the truth about what this administration has done? I know you righties won’t believe this, but my question is not a “witch hunt” looking for some misdeed by the President to with which he can be “gone after”; the quest here is to find out the truth. Did President Bush violate his oath of office?

  36. Dave Congalton
    January 27, 2008 at 7:54 am


    OK, if not McCain, then which Republican would you support? Romney? Huckabee?

    There’s not much choice out there.

    McCain isn’t perfect. None of these candidates are and you are not going to have 100% agreement with any of them. It is wrong to punish McCain for McCain-Feingold, as bad a bill as that might be.

    It is unreasonable to hold any candidate to such high standards. You have to find the candidate whom you believe has the best leadership skills, has the best experience, will choose the best people and hope he/she does the right thing.

  37. Rich from Paso
    January 27, 2008 at 9:11 am

    I said in previous posts on this thread is that Romney should be the Republican nominee. Despite all of the hay trying to be made out of his Mormon faith, he has gone out of his way to downplay his faith, unlike Huckabee that tries to exploit it. He has the greatest resume for leading people and governments. He has brought Democrats and Republicans together in heavily liberal Massachusetts to solve problems. He has the advantage of having actually tried to solve the healthcare insurance divide with his insurance mandate and the removal of the restrictions on which healthcare pools people can participate in. He has ran businesses (far more successfully than any of Bush’s ventures). He fixed the fiscal problems of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and actually turned a small profit. As you have said before, claiming foreign policy experience is overrated. Bush claimed he had foreign policy experience, look where it got us.

    I would think that Rudy Giuliani would be a strong second choice for you. He, too, has strong chief executive experience from New York City. Has strong “law and order” credentials. He is also a uniter that, as a Republican, had to get things done in the overwhelmingly liberal New York City government. He is fairly liberal on some of his social views, which I think should indicate to you an openess to viewpoints outside party dogma. I think that the Firefighters union coming out against Rudy is just an attempt at political sabotage, as if Rudy personally selected the radios used on 9/11. As I have seen many times before in the Army, some faceless no name individual buys a radio that serves almost no purpose and has very limited functionality. I think that is what happened here. Problem with Rudy is with the Conservative wing of the Republican party that detests his pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, two failed marriages and his stance on illegal immigration as mayor. That is why he probably will be gone by the end of Super Tuesday.

    Problem with Hillary Clinton, beyond everything everyone has said is bad about her, is that she has negative ratings higher than any other candidate in U.S. history. Her 50% negatives will ensure that, even if elected, the blood feud between Republicans and Democrats will go on for four more years. Barak Obama may be inexperienced, but he doesn’t carry the baggage that Hillary does.

    Yes, the field is very weak this cycle from both parties. I would not be surprised if a third… and maybe a fourth party… candidate was to spring up either the right or the left, or both. We could have the first four-way election with four major candidates and where 35-40% wins the presidency. It could go as low as 30. At any rate, we all, as Republicans and Democrats, need to finally put the nation first and select the best person to lead the nation. I can see either Romney or Obama doing that.

    Bob: The oath of office states “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The one guiding principle is that the Constitution must endure. It doesn’t say how or specify the means that it will be protected and preserved only that the Constitution remain the law of the land at the end of the president’s term of office. Does the oath forbid lying to protect and preserve the Constitution? No, it does not. Does the Constitution stipulate that the president must be an honest and moral man, or woman for that matter? No. Is the president bound to uphold the laws of the United States? Yes, they are. Did President Bush violate his oath of office by invading Iraq? He would tell you no, because he was defending the United States, and, by extention, the Constitution from the perceived threat that Iraq and its perceived WMD programs posed if those perceived WMDs were to fall into Osama bin Laden’s hands. Does there need to be an investigation of hwo we went to war? I see no harm in that. An investigation into the intelligence failures that led to us invading Iraq is just as important as the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.

  38. Downtown Bob
    January 27, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Dave: I am surprised that you are even considering supporting a candidate who would continue the agenda of President Bush if elected (or appointed like Bush was) such as John McCain. His “zeal” to fight the “War on Terror”© even when he was in Iraq walking through that market plaza surrounded by how many hundreds of our best fighting forces, with a couple of attack helicopters swarming overhead and he said he felt “safe”- do you honestly think he is touch with reality? We don’t need someone to continue the failed policies that the Bush Administration has used to push our country towards this oncoming recession and the sweeping curtailment of our civil liberties. What we “need” is a candidate with the courage and vision to implement sweeping changes that put our country on a path towards energy independence, corporate responsibility and making sure that all Americans have access to healthcare so that we can be as functional as possible to make our country a leader again in technological and ecological practices that the whole world will strive to follow and emulate. The only candidate who has that F.D.R. capability to correct the course our country has veered towards the cliffs of disparagement is John Edwards. Go ahead you ditto heads, tell me how he is “just a trial lawyer” or how he doesn’t appear to walk the talk he puts out, but he is the candidate the right wants to run against the least. The Republican Party would much prefer to run against Hillary Clinton so they can drudge up as much garbage as possible from her and Bill Clinton’s past as well as play the subtle mind games of sexism or they are fully prepared to run against Barrack Obama utilizing his middle name in subtle “coded” references to the fear of middle eastern religious practices or blatantly play the race card against him, but a John Edwards campaign will be a much tougher battle for the right because Edwards has the populist platform that most of working and underprivileged America will embrace. As for the “Democratic Landslide of 2008” Rich, once there is a greater number of Democrats in the House and the Senate, the Democratic President taking office in January 2009 will be able to actually accomplish some meaningful legislation and implement some progressive agendas that will put this country back on track similar to what was starting to happen back in the early and mid-nineties.

  39. Anonymous
    January 27, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Dave Congalton said…
    “Anonymous —
    Congratulations — you win the award for DUMBEST/WEAKEST ARGUMENT ever posted on the history of this blog”

    Dave what you don’t seem to grasp is that coming from the deeply committed socialist radical sorros lefty like you that is the finest compliment you could give!

    It’s OK that you can’t grasp the concept that Bill Clinton was and is the biggest embarrassment to your party and our nation in its history. And he continues to provide more cannon fodder every day. You seem to share his deep-rooted quality of narcissism with Clinton. So be it. But in the past year you have lost your objectivity and credibility to all but your lefty loon cronies. I know that bothers you deeply as it does Clinton to see himself as the butt of the joke now rather than someone of integrity.

    But you can continue to bash and hate Bush all you want. Just know this fact. It doesn’t matter anymore! The nation is moving on to the future. Only you sorrosite lefties are stuck in your interpretations of the past failure that even when you had a chance to end all this Bush stuff by gaining control in the house and senate you did NOTHING! In fact you did less than nothing and in that achieved the status of the worst rating in the house and senate in the history of our great nation…You can put that feather in your cap if you wish, but I would be tucking my tail if my party screwed up as big as your has in the Whitehouse and the house and senate.

    As for McCain, we neither want nor need your vote. Go buddy up with your dtBob buddy and vote for one of three train wrecks on your side. We, the nation, will do fine without any support from the moveon, code pinko, daily kook crowd you run with.

    Our nation is safe, and has been since the awful 9-11 event caused by Clinton’s obsession with his penis rather than our running and protecting our nation. Bush has brought safety with a 100% volunteer armed forces. You have no argument there. None!

    Clinton has sealed his fate as a completely Narcissistic, Sociopathic, Pathological Liar. Nothing you can say will ever change that. This election process and his own party’s hate for what he is doing and done is evidence enough. Clinton is a fool!

    So you can continue to bash Bush all you want from your job, your home, both of which are in complete safety. Your 401K that has grown beyond even your expectations, a strong record setting Wall Street, and a very low unemployment rate and low interest rates for homebuyers.

    Bash away Dave…you and the Clintons are both has-beens. You both make my point every time you open your mouths.

  40. Rich from Paso
    January 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    Bob: Your comment about “meaningful legislation and implement some progressive agendas” scare the shit out of us Republicans because we know that is code for “unrestrained socialism and anti-capitalism”. Left unchecked, your party’s ‘progressive’ wing will do more to destroy the United States economy than a dozen 9/11’s. The American people tend to be pretty smart on these things, which is why the Democrats won’t have all three houses of government. They like for the US to have divided government and I think that trend will remain the same in ’08.

  41. NewsstandGreg
    January 28, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Dave, how bold of you to quote this study!

    And how many are ready to discount it for (insert reason here) and then dismiss it.

    The Liar in Chief has destroyed the Republican Party in these 7+ years. It’s a true fact the die hards won’t face. For them, hope is only a disaster away.

    Get ready for more of the same failed policies of “disaster capitalism.” In a Sunday op-ed in the LA Times, Naomi Klein puts it this way:

    “Why the right loves a disaster

    Ideologues use times of crisis as an opportunity to foist their economic policies on desperate societies.

    Moody’s, the credit-rating agency, claims the key to solving the United States’ economic woes is slashing spending on Social Security. The National Assn. of Manufacturers says the fix is for the federal government to adopt the organization’s wish-list of new tax cuts. For Investor’s Business Daily, it is oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, “perhaps the most important stimulus of all.”

    But of all the cynical scrambles to package pro-business cash grabs as “economic stimulus,” the prize has to go to Lawrence B. Lindsey, formerly President Bush’s assistant for economic policy and his advisor during the 2001 recession.

    Lindsey’s plan is to solve a crisis set off by bad lending by extending lots more questionable credit. “One of the easiest things to do would be to allow manufacturers and retailers” — notably Wal-Mart — “to open their own financial institutions, through which they could borrow and lend money,” he wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal.

    Never mind that that an increasing number of Americans are defaulting on their credit card payments, raiding their 401(k) accounts and losing their homes. If Lindsey had his way, Wal-Mart, rather than lose sales, could just loan out money to keep its customers shopping, effectively turning the big-box chain into an old-style company store to which Americans can owe their souls.

    Do the free-market policies packaged as emergency cures actually fix the crises at hand? For the ideologues involved, that has mattered little. What matters is that, as a political tactic, disaster capitalism works.

    Yet while managing (barely) to hold the line, the House Democrats appear to have given up on extending unemployment benefits and increasing funding for food stamps and Medicaid as part of the stimulus package. More important, they are failing utterly to use the crisis to propose alternative solutions to a status quo marked by serial crises, whether environmental, social or economic.

    The disaster capitalists have held the reins for three decades. The time has come, once again, for disaster populism.”

    In other words, cut your losses and vote Democratic! –Newsstand Greg

  42. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 1:20 am

    Gee Dave…an apology looks in order today. Last night on your own lefty 60 minutes program discredited your soros lefty loon attack on President Bush by saying that in fact there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    As do all the quotes posted here earlier made by almost all the leading democrats.

    You’re a lil out of touch Dave. That hate has been blinding you for quite some time.

    And your defense of Bubba is being shattered every time he opens his mouth! Even the Kennedy’s are supporting B. Hussein Obama…and leaving the Clinton machine in their dust. Much of the democratic party is distancing themselves from the Clintons…The man you say was the best President ever, is faltering badly. His narcissism and pathological lying is doing him in as it did when he was impeached for it!

    Think it through. Clinton could be the anchor that sinks your boat.

  43. Anonymous
    January 29, 2008 at 4:26 am

    Nice try pal…Nobody reads the lefty LA times anymore. Their subscriptions are off by over 50%!
    They haven’t turned as profit for years.

    And guess why? Because they publish all this lefty loon crap!

    But it was a decent try in the face of your party inploding and self destructing.

    The next 7 months are going to be very fun for Republicans. I wonder what color we will paint some of the rooms in the White House when we move back in?

  44. Downtown Bob
    January 29, 2008 at 8:06 am

    Rich: You stated: Does the oath forbid lying to protect and preserve the Constitution? during a comment about the question of impeachment of the President. If you remember there was much made of a previous President when he lied, the apparent difference was the other President was supposed to be under oath. President Bush has been very careful to never appear before Congress to testify, especially under oath. You mentioned that you are open to an investigation to find out if the President has violated the Constitution; I suggest that deliberately misleading (lying to) Congress in order for them to authorize his going to war in Iraq should be grounds for impeachment.
    As for my “code” equalling “unrestrained socialism and anti-capitalism”; the last seven years have certainly not been healthy for the majority of Americans. The Neo-Con agenda has been a disaster as the grand experiment of supply side economics has proved that it doesn’t work, unless you are in the top percentage of income strata. I don’t “hate” capitalism, I just believe that it needs to regulated, in order to save it from itself. Unregulated, unrestrained corporations will not operate with anyone’s best interest at heart with the exception of their mandate of making a profit. During the discussion we have had here back and forth about healthcare I pointed out how when a majority of the workforce age population has access to affordable healthcare and can stay healthy, the businesses that employe those healthy employees will be more profitable than the employers who have to maintain their own healthcare policies. Progressive policies will make America stronger, period. Remember that FDR saved capitalism from itself once with a progressive agenda.
    anonymouses: Keep on drinking the kool-aid fellas, it should make the transition from President Bush to either President Obama, President Hillary Clinton, or President Edwards a little more bearable for you. Good luck with that.

  45. Rich from Paso
    January 29, 2008 at 8:35 am

    Greg: The simple truth is that both parties use disaster, or the fear of disaster, to spread its ideology. The Right has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism and the fear of terrorism to win elections, wage wars and to do everything from get the USA PATRIOT Act passed to determine what size hygiene products you can bring on a plane. The Left has been blatantly guilty of using disasters, and the fear of them, to foist their left-wing socialist programs on Americans. Fear of global warming has lead California to cut off its own business nose to spite their face with Ahnold’s “greenhouse gas” legislation. Katrina was blamed on global warming, when for two subsequent years have seen NO hurricanes hit the US and this is the coldest, wettest winter since 1979. Fear of global warming and the fear of polar bears dying from it has caused youngsters to break down in tears over the prospects, regardless of the fact that the ice sheets in the Artic and antartic are actually getting thicker. The left loves disasters too. Don’t kid yourself for a moment. You don’t think that the Democrat nominee will try to beat all Republicans over the head with this “sub-prime” nonsense (nonsense because Democrats in the House and Senate actually passed laws forcing lending institutions to make questionable loans in order to be “fair”) in order to take control of that segment of the economy. Read anything hillary has said about freezing interest rates for five years and a moretorium on foreclosures. Health care is a HUGE source of fearmongering on the left. 10% of Americans are alledgedly one illness away from the poor house, so we need to nationalize 1/7th of the US GDP to force EVERYONE to have nationalized health care. Who’s forcing their ideology there?

    The Left loves disasters, or the fear of disasters, too.

  46. Rich from Paso
    January 29, 2008 at 10:28 am

    FDR saved capitalism from itself!?!?!
    Liberal fantasies. FDR did nothing to “save capitalism”. He did keep America together until WWII, when America could put men and women to work building arms and equipment for the lend-lease program. His “progressive policies” kept Americans busy with his alphabet agencies. The New Deal was a failure. The only two successes were the creation of the Federal Reserve and Social Security, which keep the elderly from being abandoned by their families. The fact is that FDR used the Great Depression and his many unconstitutional programs of the New Deal to try to “pack the court” by trying to increase the members of the court to 15. He wanted to do that because the following laws he got passed as part of the New Deal were ruled unconstitutional:

    1935 Jan 7: Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935) Held, 8-1: National Industrial Recovery Act Sect. 9(c) unconstitutional

    1935 May 6: Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330 (1935) Held, 5-4: Railroad Retirement Act unconstitutional

    1935 May 27: Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) Held, 9-0: National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional

    1935 May 27: Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935) Held, 9-0: President may not remove member of Federal Trade Commission

    1936 Jan 6: United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) Held, 9-0: Agricultural Adjustment Act unconstitutional

    1936 May 18: Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936) Held, 6-3: Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 unconstitutional

    Do you want to know what really caused the Great Depression? DO you want to know what caused the Crash of 1929? It wasn’t “buying on margin” on Wall Street. In 1929, France annexed the Saar River valley instead of allowing it to go back into German hands. The United States was heavily invested in the only region of industrialization in Germany. When France annexed that territory, hundreds of millions of investors dollars vanished in an instant. Germany was bankrupt. American investors lost their shirts and were no longer able to meet margin calls. The effect snowballed. Also, in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley tarrif hurt US businesses buy starting a tariff war, which made US good uncompetative and devestated the economy racked by the Crash of 1929. Yes, both Smoot and Hawley, as well as Hoover that signed the bill, were all Republicans, but the lesson learned here was that protectionism destroys prosperity. Take that all you anti-NAFTA kooks.

  47. NewsstandGreg
    February 4, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Rich from Paso,

    I respect your knowledge of history to provide background and support for your point of view.

    With that in mind, thought you’d like this piece which tells why the USA is broke.

    In view of our current global military deployments, please tell me what you think!

    –Newsstand Greg

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: