Check it out. The media is ignoring this and it doesn't look like it will go anywhere, but I'm glad Kucinich is doing it anyway. It's ridiculous that knowingly lying about a blow job is worthy of impeachment, but knowingly lying about war is not.
Lying under oath. Big whoop. I don't care if he lied under oath about having an affair. I just don't. There are differences in the level of lies here. It's ridiculous he was asked about it in the first place. It's similar to Bush lying about cocaine use. The only difference is Bush hasn't been asked such a ridiculous question under oath. I don't really care that Bush has lied about doing cocaine and I wouldn't care if he lied about it under oath. I don't care that he did cocaine (and it's obvious that he did.) I care that he led us into war on false pretenses. It's obvious as day that George W. Bush and his administration mislead America (and the congress for that matter) into going into war in Iraq. Bush shouldn't only be impeached - he should be imprisoned.
That's the problem. You have to apply the law equally. You can't pick and choose when lying is acceptable under oath. Perjury is perjury. This goes to the ridiculous notion that we have a living Constitution. If you can arbitrarily reinterpret the law, without amending or changing it, the law is absolutely meaningless. No, the law is not perfect, no the Constitution is not perfect, but changing it is the appropriate way to address that, not just ignoring or twisting it on demand. That's how Bush was able to do what he did. By ignoring the constitution. And likewise, read through Obama's platform and rhetoric, he's planning to ignore the Constitution as well. Do you care that Clinton murdered 500,000 Iraqi kids? Do you care that he authorized the use of military force against schools and hospitals in Serbia? Of course not. You're a partisan, the worst sort of political actor. You only criticize when it's Republican or Bush, not when it is someone from your side of the spectrum. If you won't consistently enforce the law, but rather only when it bothers you, then what point is there in having law? You can just hang people from a tree with a lynch mob when something does bother you.
I disagree 100%. "Perjury is perjury" is BS. There are big lies and there are small lies. Lying about an affair just doesn't bother me. I don't care how many bibles he put his hand on. --- When did Clinton "murder 500K Iraqi kids" ??? --- I certainly do not agree with everything Democrats do or Clinton did. Democrats are far too conservative for my tastes and far too into war. But I understand that politics is a war of attrition. I want things headed more the way I think they should be. Let's put it this way... If there's a scale of 1 to 10 of how I think things should be then the Dems are a 7 and the Republicans are a 3. Sure I'd love to have a 10, but it's not happening any time soon. Perhaps we'll get there eventually though. Big changes happen over time. Obama winning this year moves us in the right direction. Hopefully next time a candidate can run on a more liberal platform (on foreign policy & civil liberties, my two biggest issues with the Democrats) ... If Obama's policies become the norm and he performs well (which I believe he will) then he becomes the new center - then hopefully we can have people running far to his left (like Kucinich) and we can finally get this country caught up with Europe (and then far surpass them in regards to civil liberties, I am hopeful. We are supposed to be the land of the free. Perhaps George W. Bush was the kick in the pants we needed to get people to wake up to this fact.)
That's not the point. The law is, you don't lie under oath. Not "you don't tell big lies", or "you don't tell kinda big lies". Under oath, in a court, before the law, you are compelled to answer truthfully, whether you are a taxi cab driver or a President. We're a nation of laws, not a nation of men. You probably don't even know that Clinton willingly fell under the bus for Monica, because it was a deal to keep from indicting the Kochtopus on the Republican side. So they didn't indict Koch, and Clinton got a pass on Whitewater. In return, he took the fall for his extra-maritial relations. AND HE STILL GOT OFF FOR PERJURYING HIMSELF. Of course, that's no surprise. He's murdered more people than Bush, and is considered an international celebrity.
Oil for Food. I've posted about it dozens of times on this forum, with sourcing. You can search for it. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't attacking schools and hospitals a war crime? Do you think Europe is free? How could we possibly pass Europe, when our civil liberties are tremendous and protected in the Constitution? Let me guess, you are a gun grabber too?
Absolutely I'm a "gun grabber." I just had a friend who was shot in DC. I do not know yet if he will make it... and it definitely strengthens my already strong belief that we need much stronger gun laws in this country. And yes I think Europe is more free when it comes to civil liberties. I think that's quite obvious. I think they are overall far more enlightened when it comes to the role of religion in politics (it has none.) I think they are far more enlightened when it comes to the place for guns in a society (they have none.) I think they are far more understanding of how to deal with drug use etc (drug use should not be a crime, at worst it should be treated an health issue, at best folks should just be left alone to do what they want with their own bodies.) No, I do not consider a tool for killing people to be a civil liberty.
Yes, we know, you hate America. Every President for the last 20 years was a war criminal. Your country sucks. Blah blah blah. Don't you ever get tired of repeating this fringe paranoid crap?
Nice Ad Hominem and strawman arguments. Now if you think I am incorrect, try to refute my points instead of fabricating positions or casting insults. It makes you look weak, desperate and ignorant. and we don't want that. Apparently you also don't respect property rights, or the 2nd Amendment. Some civil libertarian you are. So you're with Obama. You think the American people are a bunch of gun toting religious fanatics. But then Obama supports keeping hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans incarcerated. How do you reconcile that? The same hypocritical way you reconcile Clinton lying under oath, Clinton committing war crimes, Obama taking money from lobbyists, and Obama voting for the war? At one time, I really did believe you where interested in Ron Paul because you were principled. Over and over, your posts betray an interest in power, not in principle, and that bothers me, that I could be so wrong about you.
another 6 months he will be out of the white house , why bother now to impeach him. there is not point worrying about spoiled milk
Well if he did break the law that's like saying, well the murderer is going to die in 6 months as he's got cancer. There is no point worrying about spoiled milk. The president however can be far more dangerous from the power he yields than the murderer making it that much more important that if/when an elected official, especially the president breaks a law he/she be held accountable. I don't care if they have 3 years left, 2 days, 5 months, or are already out of office. To not worry about 'spoiled milk' is to say to the next president they are free to 'spoil' their milk as well.
Kucinich was on Alex Jones today. I swear, if Dennis wasn't a flaky new age liberal, I would support him. He's really good on a lot of issues. Anyways, Dennis is going to give the Congress 30 days to take action, and then after that, he's going to reintroduce the bill under privilege, and make it 60 articles of impeachment. He says he is not going away and early next week, there should be an indication of how many members will sign on. His article for Cheney generated 27, everyone should call their member Monday morning, and ask them to sign on, but only after you have read the articles yourself. I have only got through the first 4 myself. The documentation is pretty convincing. I'll see if I can dig up a copy of his interview. It was awesome.
As far as I'm concerned the true issue here is why was he even asked under oath about his personal life
Because he had cut a deal with the Republicans. They would embarrass him with Monica, and he would get off on Whitewater. In return, the Dems would overlook illegal donations from the Koch family to the GOP. I can't remember where I heard that, but it makes perfect sense. People need to get past the left-right paradigm in America. We have one party and it is completely corrupt.
If you don't care about where the lie was under oath only what the lie was about then who sets the standard of was lie is punishable and which one isn't. Are you the standard setter? Can I set the standard? Or maybe we should let the Christian right set the standard which would consider Clinton's lie much bigger since one it was under oath and two it dealt with infidelity.
I think the whole impeachment thing is stupid. With Clinton, the entire thing was far far far more political and far less legal. Now throwing it at Bush is potentially more political and far less legal. Beyond that, the problem imv, is that the essence of the Bush administration since it took office has been to not make any evidence about anything available to the public. On a host of issues, including some very important governance issues, Congress simply can't get administration personnel to testify, let alone testify to anything that is believable. The Justice department issues testimony to date and the inability of Congress to get testimony from various Bush administration people speaks to the difficulty in finding out hard facts. We are months away from a new administration....I'd focus on that. Lastly, why anyone in their right mind would want to impeach Bush is beyond me. The results would put Cheney in the White House. Bombs away!!!!!!! with Cheney.