150... :GFYBand

Gee, maybe its because the pipelines keep getting blown up.

do you understand the concept of anex, they are protecting them for the newly formed government of Iraq.

If they anexed them it would own them, american companies would have ownership rights to those oil fields.

Sort of like what britain did with hong kong before it was returned to china in 1999.

For god's sake iraq is still going to be a member of opec controling supply to drive prices up.

your wrong on two counts
first it is not a lie about a blow job (no matter how much you want it to be)
it a lie to put a person who has a blackmailable secret in a job within the pentagon. The fact that she got caught (because she was stupid enough to bragged about it) before it was used to steal information that would have put 1000, if not 100,000 of military peoples lives at risk is just great luck.

Second bush did not lie, you have no proof that he lied about WMD existing
and there is tonnes of evidence that Biological WMD existed when the inspectors were searching it was just destroyed by the time the invasion was over.

do you remember jay leno joking about how all the inspectors found flu vaccine when looking for Biological WMD.

do you know what the process is for creating a flu vaccine.
1. culture the live flu virus
2. kill the virus
3. process the bio mass into a liquid that when injected looks like the live virus so the body can become immune to the virus without suffering the potentially deadly effects of the virus



If you were producing Influenza WMD you know what you have to do
1. culture the live flu virus
2. store culture

All you have to do to hide your WMD development would be
1. kill the virus
2. process it into vaccine

Fact the amount of vaccine found was so great that it would have inoculated every man women and child (including all the rebels who were trying to overthrow sadam)

which means there are three possiblities

1. sadam is a nice dictator providing vaccine to all his people and his enemies.
2. Sadam was producing weapons grade influenza and the vacine for his own troops, however when he realized he would be caught, his scientist kill the live virus and turned it into vaccine to cover their tracks. It just a coincidence that large portion of the US supply of flu vaccine was tainted at the same time.
3. Sadam was producing weapons grade influenza and vacine for his own troops, he destroyed it and turned into vaccine, and the shortage of flu vaccine in the US was deliberate act designed to make the US vulnerable to a biological attack.


All you have to do is look at the historical record of how sadam treated his people to realize that there is a snowball chance in hell that this is true.

Ms. Lewinski's job was not in the pentagon, FWIW.

Over 150 posts and only one person has tried to answer the question. Why won't this administration testify under oath, being the trustworthy,rightous, religious, god fearing, wonderful people that they are.

It cracks me up that no one here can see just how hypocritical it is.

They throw god and integrity around, but won't live up to their own standards.

Oh well. done wasting my time and energy typing this shit on gfy.

Good Im glad you stop typing this fucking shit on GFY, worry about your kids.

you would think know more about your own current events

"In the Spring of 1996, Evelyn Lieberman, Chief of Staff, noticed the close
relationship and had her transferred to the Pentagon to try and avoid scandal. Clinton intervened and got her an important job with top security clearance as a "Confidential Assistant" to chief Pentagon spokesman, Kenneth Bacon. She received a salary of $32,700 a year including travel
expenses to Europe"

from the star report

Kenneth Bacon: Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs; Monica Lewinsky's Pentagon Supervisor

Turn off Fox, you are sounding a little brainwashed. :1orglaugh

Bill Clinton lied about a blowjob.

No amount of right wing spin will ever change that.

Bush lied to the country about the reasons he started a war.

Whatever else you've been brainwashed with is just right wing spin.

:1orglaugh

you keep ignoring all the answers i keep giving you.
Getting the president to testify under oath is witch hunt.

The fact that clinton kept being forced to testify proves that if there was any resonable level of evidence against him he could be compelled to testify under oath.

You yourself prove that democrats are willing to deliberately ignore key facts to back up your bullshit statements. (how many times have you said George Bush lied about their being any WMD even though you know the only way that is true is if Sadam is a nice dictator who produced vaccine for his enemies)

If he testified under oath he would have to deal with false criminal charges for perjury.

I love when democrats use the moral high ground arguement because it makes them look so stupid

Slick willy was compelled to testify multiple times (whitewater, travelgate, star report) and each time he had his lawyers fought tooth and nail to keep him out of the witness chair.


The evidence against George bush is so weak that the lawyers could even get Subpoena to compell him to testify (before the motion to suppress), george bush is not fighting a subpoena he is simply not volunteering to participate in a witch hunt.

Participating in an investigation when there isn't a single shred of evidence that support going after you is as stupid as going into a street fight giving your opponent weapons and handcuffing hands behind your back.

Having moral does not mean you have to be stupid.

when bill clinton got lewinsky the job at the pentagon did he disclose that he had an affair with her making her a security risk to being blackmailed.

bill clinton lied about a blowjob
he also participated in a cover up to prevent that secret from comming out
including getting someone who had a blackmailable secret a job with the pentagon.

Nixon the republican who resigned (to avoid getting impeached) didn't plan the break in, didn't even know it was going on until it was already done, but he covered it up afterwards, using government resources to do it.

The one thing democrats did well (and i have to give them credit for because it was brilliant) was turn impeachment process into a sex scandal.

Take the sex out of the story Clinton is as guilty as Nixon if not worse
because NIXON did not put the countries military at risk by putting someone with a blackmailable secret in the pentagon.

What you learn from watching Fox News:

Bill Clinton put the U.S. military at risk by getting a blowjob.

George W. Bush did not put the U.S. military at risk by lying about reasons for sending the U.S. military to war with a country who did not attack America.

:1orglaugh

Clinton said he never thought that she would keep the secret, his lie was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman miss lewinski" he was saying a bj was not intercourse so he wasnt lieing. lol

I have not read the whole thread but the answer is that the two times they testified they were under no obligation to do so and thus they would not be allow themselves to be placed under oath as they did not want to set any kind of a precedent they may be used against future Presidents.

How times do i have to say this The blowjob is irrelevant, lying about it to his wife/friends is irrelevant it using government resources to cover up the affair that is the problem (covering up her security risk, giving her the job, calling in favors to get her good jobs to cover up the affair)


As to arguing that bush lied there isn't one single fact anywhere that supports that accusation in fact the report you keep pointing to as proof that he lied (han blix report)
states

"While UNMOVIC has been preparing its own list of current ?unresolved disarmament issues? and ?key remaining disarmament tasks? in response to requirements in resolution 1284 (1999), we find the issues listed in the two reports as unresolved, professionally justified. These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. "



The fact is if report proved what you guys keep claiming it proved that would not only be an abuse of power (impeachable offence) but a violation of the Geneva convention (tried for war crimes) and they could have forced Bush to appear before congress to testify, just like they forced Regan.

Hell they don't need proof they all they need it to be is a reasonable possiblity that what he did was wrong and they could call him before congress and force him to testify under oath (just like they did with reagan).

How many times do i have to say this that not the lie that the star report said Clinton should be impeached for, that the lie the democrats kept shoving down the media's throats to shift the blame from the abuse of power when covering up his affair.

1. he put a security risk in A1 security clearance job at the pentagon
2. He called in favors to get her jobs in the private sector
3. He called in favors to keep linda tripp quiet when she found out

That the same crap that Nixon did when he resigned.

Look at the way reagan (bush jr) did it and you will see the correct way to do
reagan admitted that he knew about the exchange of hostages for arms, he said he did not know about the deversion of funds to the contras.

He told the truth when he first got caught he did not cover it up.

After reading this last part of the "discussion" here's what ya'll need to think about - first some history:
Testifying under oath for a president is something that was not really thought of by the framers of the Constitution - the idea that Anyone would testify under oath for their own defense was not even allowed in this country till after the Civil War - before that (and at the time of the Constitution) everyone figured a defendant would lie to cover himself so this wasnt even an option in court cases. It only became an option after the Civil war when after a few highly publicized cases of negroes being allowed to testify, the whites figured if they were allowed then they better change the court system to allow all defendants to testify under oath.
Historically, Presidents haven't been forced to testify, although the only thing that kept them from being called was either deals with congress or allowing their subordinates to testify for them. With the establishment of the "special prosecuter" which is a very recent event, things changed a little although keep in mind that the only thing that keeps a President from testifying is the public will - the American people have never required it and probably (with the huge amount of apathy rampant in todays America) they never will.

The spin "facts" that are being put out here are just that - spin - and although you guys may believe all of your biased opinions from both sides - it isnt gonna change anything - both of these events have already happened and no amount of bickering (discussion) is gonna go back and put it right for either side :)

If you need an example of a true lie by the current president - its real simple - look to the accounting by all news organizations about the 9/11 crisis - both conservative and liberal presses have reported that the President stated when he saw the first plane hit the WTC on that morning when he was in an elementry school classroom (he got shown this supposedly right before he went into the classroom - or so the news has reported) his words were "stupid pilot" - Im sure all of you will agree that this is what was reported and what he has always stated - right???
Here's the part thats a lie - if you go back and check with the news stations - NONE of them showed a video of the first plane hitting the WTC till the next day - only the second plane later on while Bush was already in the classroom - follow the timeline! When the second plane hit his aide came into the classroom and informed him - we've all seen his reaction to that - so here's my question - Did he lie about seeing the first plane hit and saying "stupid pilot"? Its the story he's always told - and yet - not one media source ever broadcast the first plane that day.
All of you that needed some fuel - there ya go

As far as the original post's question - Should they be required to testify under oath? My answer/opinion is yes - but I'm only one voter out of all of the Americans that vote - the rest would have to vote to settle that issue. And getting the country to vote would be the biggest hurdle to all of this.

And just how did an unknown statement about a wife working for the CIA cost thousands of lives?

Typical response. Whenever a person with conservative values defends their point, they are brainwashed, but all the people on here that are hardcore liberals are not. Stop namecalling and defend your point. It's that easy.