Partisan politics and corruption; business as usual

[DC_DEEP]

Uh, I think you outed yourself mr non-partisan. I knew you were a phoney liberal in disguise.


1. It was NOT Ken Starr's sole task to innvestigate improper land deals.
2. Bush did not lie to Congress about Iraq. Toatl horseshit and you are one of the left wing liars who contiually pimp that outright lie.
3, He did not" lie to congress " about the NSA program. that was classified information properly not disclosed.
4. I have no idea wht you're referring to in doctoring OIG reports but it is most likely some tripe you read on some lefty blog.

Yeah sure.

YOu liberals wouldn't vote for a Republican if they promised to eliminate the tolls on 95 .

I think you outed yourself as nothing more than a troll. Please crawl back under your bridge. What were you calling me when I criticized Pelosi and Frank in another thread? Bad behavior is bad behavior. It is non-partisan, it's just that you right wing liars don't understand that.

For the record, do you have access to the text of Starr's appointment as Whitewater Special Prosecutor? And do you personally know any Inspectors General? Um. I do. IGs are presidential appointees, for what it's worth, and the ones I know have shown me "before and after" versions of the semi-annual reports. Just because you have no idea what I'm referring to, don't let that prevent you from being an idiot. I don't read any blogs, lefty OR righty.

 

[madame_zora]

I've been awake now for 36 hours, so here goes:

Uh, I think you outed yourself mr non-partisan. I knew you were a phoney liberal in disguise.

Thanks. None of us knew DC before you got here- you arrived just in time!

1. It was NOT Ken Starr's sole task to innvestigate improper land deals.

Kenneth Winston Starr (born July 21, 1946) is an American lawyer and former judge who was appointed to the Office of the Independent Counsel to investigate the death of the deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater land transactions by President Bill Clinton. He later submitted to Congress the Starr Report, which led to Clinton's impeachment on charges arising from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He currently serves as dean of Pepperdine University's School of Law in California.

Kenneth Starr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry fucktard, he WAS tasked with investigating Clinton on the Whitewater charges. ONlY when his investigation turned up NOTHING did he proceed into Clinton's sex life. Your lack of knowledge sure doesn't stop you from voicing your ill-informed opinions though, does it?

2. Bush did not lie to Congress about Iraq. Toatl horseshit and you are one of the left wing liars who contiually pimp that outright lie.

Oy vey. Okay, how about "Iraq has WMDS, based on reliable information"

Warnings on WMD 'Fabricator' Were Ignored, Ex-CIA Aide Says


"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

CNN.com - Bush welcomes probe of CIA leak - Feb. 11, 2004

We're only using the NSA wiretapping on suspected terrorists.

Justice Dept. Investigating Leak of NSA Wiretapping


Oh, and just for shits and giggles, how about bush claiming he was not informed that Al-quaeda had threatened to blow up the Twin Towers prior to 9/11, then we got to see the clip of him being briefed by his own cabinet? No, he didn't lie- he just drinks a lot.

3, He did not" lie to congress " about the NSA program. that was classified information properly not disclosed.

When you say something that isn't true, it's a lie. He didn't say, "That's a matter of national security, so I decline to answer". Read a dictionary, it may clear up some of your confusion.

4. I have no idea wht you're referring to in doctoring OIG reports but it is most likely some tripe you read on some lefty blog.

E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency - Free Preview - The New York Times

The EPA Global Warming Report, the Bush Administration and the News Media: Cooking the Books or Cooking Up Stories?

washingtonpost.com

What you don't know is a lot. Keep talking, you make us lefties look smarter all the time!

 

[B_JQblonde]

"The rush to war over the imminent threat of Saddam's WMDs and his links with al Qaeda were just an honest mistake. It was a slam dunk case, see? Bush apologists keep on pimping that lie. "

More lies. There was no rush to war. It was delibereated and debated ad nauseum. YOu must be thinking about Afghanistan.

As far as WMD goes.

Bill Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
Maddy Albright said Saddam had WMd.
Al Gore said Saddam had WMD.
Sandy Berger said Saddam had WMD.
Hillary Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
Bill Cohen said Saddam had WMD.
John Kerry said Saddam had WMD.
Tony Blair said Saddam had WMD.
Jacque Chirac said Saddan had WMD.

In summary , every single person who had any real knowledge on the subject came to this conclusion. Saddam had WMD.

But Bush ? HE was lying when he said it.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIght.

Liberals and logic . oil and water.

 

[B_JQblonde]

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

Armitage was the leaker. He did not violate the law. Thus no need to be taken care of.
Liberals and logic.
Oil and water.

 

[B_JQblonde]

4. I have no idea wht you're referring to in doctoring OIG reports but it is most likely some tripe you read on some lefty blog. E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency - Free Preview - The New York Times

The EPA Global Warming Report, the Bush Administration and the News Media: Cooking the Books or Cooking Up Stories?
"

Those aren't OIG reports. Those are agency reports which ANY Administration has EVERY RIGHT to edit as they see fit.
I doubt you even know what the OIG is.
Liberals and reading comprehension.
Oil and water.

 

[DC_DEEP]

4. I have no idea wht you're referring to in doctoring OIG reports but it is most likely some tripe you read on some lefty blog. E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency - Free Preview - The New York Times

The EPA Global Warming Report, the Bush Administration and the News Media: Cooking the Books or Cooking Up Stories?
"

Those aren't OIG reports. Those are agency reports which ANY Administration has EVERY RIGHT to edit as they see fit.
I doubt you even know what the OIG is.
Liberals and reading comprehension.
Oil and water.

I do actually happen to know what an OIG is. I happen to know, personally, one IG, and I happen to know several (around 15 or so) investigators in various IG offices. I live with one of them. No administration has any right to edit agency reports to the Congres, nor any right to edit OIG reports to the Congress. That kinda defeats the purpose of the agency or its OIG to report at all, doesn't it? If the findings and records of any federal agency are altered, what is the point? You obviously don't have a clear grasp on how federal agencies and their oversight offices are supposed to operate.

If you check your facts, any Inspector General, by law, reports DIRECTLY, and ONLY, to the Congress... not the White House.

You must be having another blonde moment.

 

[madame_zora]

You didn't read anything I posted, and you offered nothing other than your own rhetoric. I know this, because there wasn't time! Bush LIED about being briefed on the threat Al-quaeda made to strike the twin towers, he LIED about having credible evidence of WMDs since we now know it was wholly based on bad intel from "curveball", a known defector and mentally unstable informant. He LIED about knowing who leaked the info on Plame, it came out that HE knew himself at the time he made that statement.

Stupid fuck.

Yes, I'm overzealous. If I had time, I could line a whole page with the bush admin's lies- they're just so plentiful.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

What a whiney bitch you are. I'm done.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
He LIED about knowing who leaked the info on Plame, it came out that HE knew himself at the time he made that statement.
<...>
What a whiney bitch you are. I'm done.

:tongue: Zora, I'm going to resort to some "conservative right-wing nutjob" tactics here for a moment.

When they bring up the Clinton impeachment (which they love to do) they always point out that "he was not impeached for the blowjob, he was impeached for lying about it."

So now, I'm going to point out that Bush is not being castigated for the fact that the Plame leak may have violated no laws, he is being castigated for lying about it. He knew the facts before he made his statements to the press; but he still lied about it.

 

[B_JQblonde]

WRONG.
Clinton wasn't wasn't impeached for "lying about a blow job ". He was impeached for lying under oath.
Please point out the lie Bush told???

 

[B_JQblonde]

he LIED about having credible evidence of WMDs since we now know it was wholly based on bad intel from "curveball"

Chuckle.
Yeah sure, It alllllll came from curveball. That's why Clinton said Iraq had WMD. Curvball and only curveball.
The Senate Intel committe put all their faith in curveball.
SO did TOny Blair and Jacque Chirac.

Liberals and logic.

Not a good mix.

 

[DC_DEEP]

WRONG.
Clinton wasn't wasn't impeached for "lying about a blow job ". He was impeached for lying under oath.
Please point out the lie Bush told???

JQblonde and reading comprehension
Oil and water.

I pointed it out in the above post. He claimed he had no knowledge of the Plame affair, he then admitted he had knowledge but that no law was broken. He should have said that in the first place, just like Clinton should have said "none of your fucking business." Both lied. Both should be held accountable.

And according to your fabulous grasp of the historical, what lie did Clinton tell under oath?

 

[B_JQblonde]

"Bush LIED about being briefed on the threat Al-quaeda made to strike the twin towers, "
LIE!
Why do liberals always lie to try to discredit their opponents?
bush was never , never briefed on a threat by AL qaeda made to strike the twin towers.

YOu should try reading beyond Left wing blogs!

 

[B_JQblonde]

"I do actually happen to know what an OIG is. I"

If you do, then ane why did you post those agency reporsts in response to comment about Bush allegedly editing OIG reports?

Somebody said: "The Bush Administarion edits OIG reports


I said " they do ? show me" .

YOu said " Here..and then linked two agency reports-not OIG reports.

Agencies are PART Of the Administration and thus can be edited bythe Administration any time they want. And of course Every Administration properly does so. No administration wants some partisan gadfly issuing a report which reflects said gadfly's views rather than the administration's. OF course , if this was a Democrat Administration and some RIGHT WING gadfly who was the head of an agency issued a report saying something like abortions casue cancer, you'd be apoplectic.

 

[B_JQblonde]

I pointed it out in the above post. He claimed he had no knowledge of the Plame affair, he then admitted he had knowledge but that no law was broken. He should have said that in the first place, just like Clinton should have said "none of your fucking business." Both lied. Both should be held accountable.

Where did ever claim he had knowledge that Armitage was the leaker.?There is no evidence he knew that when he made that statement.
That statement was not a lie. Actually, looks like you're the liar.
You also don't know shit about the law evidently.
What Bush asid was to a reporter and he was not under oath.

Clinton on the other hand...




I. There is substantial and credible information that President Clinton lied under oath as a defendant in Jones v. Clinton regarding his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

<A name=L6>(1) He denied that he had a "sexual relationship" with Monica Lewinsky.


<A name=L7>(2) He denied that he had a "sexual affair" with Monica Lewinsky.


<A name=L8>(3) He denied that he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.


<A name=L9>(4) He denied that he engaged in or caused contact with the genitalia of "any person" with an intent to arouse or gratify (oral sex performed on him by Ms. Lewinsky).

<A name=L10>(5) He denied that he made contact with Monica Lewinsky's breasts or genitalia with an intent to arouse or gratify.

 

[DC_DEEP]

"I do actually happen to know what an OIG is. I"

If you do, then ane why did you post those agency reporsts in response to comment about Bush allegedly editing OIG reports?

Somebody said: "The Bush Administarion edits OIG reports


I said " they do ? show me" .

YOu said " Here..and then linked two agency reports-not OIG reports.

Agencies are PART Of the Administration and thus can be edited bythe Administration any time they want. And of course Every Administration properly does so. No administration wants some partisan gadfly issuing a report which reflects said gadfly's views rather than the administration's. OF course , if this was a Democrat Administration and some RIGHT WING gadfly who was the head of an agency issued a report saying something like abortions casue cancer, you'd be apoplectic.

First, please learn to use the quote tags. It's pretty simple, really. I figured it out, and I'm just a simple-minded left-wing gadfly nutjob liar; if you can't figure it out, what does that say about you?

Second, please do not call me a liar when you credit another member's posts to me.

Third, when you keep accusing me of democratic affiliations, you are a liar.

Fourth, Federal agencies are NOT part of the administration.

Fifth, keep in mind that Inspectors General are presidential appointees.

Sixth, I don't give a flying fuck which corrupt political party is in office at any given time, if they are corrupt, they are corrupt. You are the one who keeps apologizing for unethical behavior of one party. I denounce it in all political parties.

Seventh, you really make up some stupid shit with that abortion/cancer comment. I don't care who is in the white house, they don't have authority to edit IG reports to the Congress.

Eighth, if your right wing gadfly INVENTS a report, I would be apoplectic; if your right wing gadfly presents a well-researched, well-documented report, he has done his job.

Why do you continue to be such an apoplectic idiot? Why do you continue to be an apologist for corrupt politicians?

 

[DC_DEEP]

JQblonde, here is a link to the Federal Law that authorized/required the formation of Offices Of Inspectors General:

Office of Inspector General - HUD

The inspectors are appointed by the president, and can be removed by the president, but I challenge you to find any section in that law that allows for report editing by the white house. It does not exist.

By law, the IG is tasked with compiling his report, per guidelines as shown in above link; presenting his report to the department head, who then presents it to the Congress. Not to the White House. To the Congress.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Why are you addressing that to me? I certainly know what an OIG is which is why I corrected Madame Zora's erroneous post.

I never once said the WH can edit OIG reports . NEVER.
You should read the threads a little more thouroughly before inserting your foot in your mouth

 

[B_JQblonde]

Fourth, Federal agencies are NOT part of the administration. "

I stand corrected. Some are, some aren't. There are independent agencies.
THe EPA is one of those. The WH has input in any of their reports but cannot 'edit' them per se. the EPA is ultimately reponsible for the final product.
Just like they can agree of disagree with the wording of OIG reports and suggest changes. < all auditees can and almost always do> .
but they cannot 'edit' the reports. The final product is the responsibility of the IG.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I stand corrected. Some are, some aren't. There are independent agencies.
THe EPA is one of those. The WH has input in any of their reports but cannot 'edit' them per se. the EPA is ultimately reponsible for the final product.

Thanks, for those sentences. This is how I hope real dialog emerges, rather than name-calling. You are correct, the EPA is ultimately responsible for the final report - but they have, of late, simply taken all suggestions from the WH, and omitted some damning evidence and reports. The EPA director, and the OIG-EPA had two choices: make the requested (substantial, not cosmetic) changes (AKA the easy way), or defy the WH and report as found (AKA the hard, but right, way). They have chosen, several times, to take the easy way. But my point is, those reports are not supposed to go to the WH to begin with, they are supposed to go directly to The Congress, and 6 months later, be made available to the public. And again, thank you.

My partner is an inspector for the OIG for one of those independent agencies. That's where I'm getting the bulk of my info.

 

[madame_zora]

4. I have no idea wht you're referring to in doctoring OIG reports but it is most likely some tripe you read on some lefty blog. E.P.A. Holds Back Report on Car Fuel Efficiency - Free Preview - The New York Times

The EPA Global Warming Report, the Bush Administration and the News Media: Cooking the Books or Cooking Up Stories?
"

Those aren't OIG reports. Those are agency reports which ANY Administration has EVERY RIGHT to edit as they see fit.
I doubt you even know what the OIG is.
Liberals and reading comprehension.
Oil and water.

Haha, I gave YOU more credit than you deserve!

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General

Fourth, Federal agencies are NOT part of the administration. "

I stand corrected. Some are, some aren't. There are independent agencies.
THe EPA is one of those. The WH has input in any of their reports but cannot 'edit' them per se. the EPA is ultimately reponsible for the final product.
Just like they can agree of disagree with the wording of OIG reports and suggest changes. < all auditees can and almost always do> .
but they cannot 'edit' the reports. The final product is the responsibility of the IG.

Well, then at least we agree that the EPA reports, which fall under the auspices of the OIG were not LEGALLY doctored. Seems like someone was outright wrong about this, and pretty rude to be accusing me of not knowing what I was talking about, hmm?