not to mention a cunt
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
all covered in shit ...eleven bravo wrote:
cheney's a dick
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
The rationale behind the investigation is irrelevant. He was questioned under oath. He lied under oath. That is perjury. He's a Rhodes Scholar, ffs. He knows what perjury is, and knew he was perjuring himself. You don't get a pass on a felony simply because the impetus behind the investigation is questionable. Under oath is under oath. Period.Dilbert_X wrote:
The perjury aspect was late in the piece, after a good deal of GOP and media hysteria which kicked off the investigation in the first place IIRC.
ReadDilbert_X wrote:
I disagree that choosing not to have a foreign policy is good policy.You disagree with Bush's foreign policy decisions (shocker).
Reacting in a wild knee-jerk fashion after the event is not policy.
Or Google. Either way, educate yourself.
Find a poll that has a zero in the "Approve" column.Dilbert_X wrote:
And I've yet to hear anyone say that Bush made good policy.
Thought so.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No it isn't its the whole point, people were hysterical about blowjobgate already, the perjury happened at the end.FEOS wrote:
The rationale behind the investigation is irrelevant.
Fuck Israel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13785080Mexico drug war: US sting 'let cartels buy guns'
Hundreds of US guns were bought, resold and sent to Mexican drug cartels in an Arizona sting operation while US firearms agents were ordered not to intervene, Congress has heard.
Three firearms agents said they were told to track the movement of the weaponry, but not to make any arrests.
US lawmakers expressed outrage at the details of Operation Fast and Furious.
The news comes one day after a report suggested Mexican drug cartels have armed themselves with US weapons.
The report suggests some 70% of firearms recovered from Mexican crime scenes in 2009 and 2010 and submitted for tracing came from the US.
On Wednesday, congressional lawmakers concluded that Fast and Furious, which was designed to track small-time gun buyers to major weapons traffickers along America's south-west border, never led to the arrest of any major traffickers.
The guns tracked by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were reportedly used in numerous killings in Mexico.
Lawmakers on the House of Representatives Oversight Committee said they demanded answers from the Obama administration about why no arrests were made while investigators were tracking the firearms.
"We monitored as they purchased handguns, AK-47 variants and .50 caliber rifles, almost daily at times," ATF agent John Dodson told the committee.
He added that though he wanted to "intervene and interdict these weapons", his supervisors told him not to make any arrests.
At a hearing prior to the panel, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa said "hundreds upon hundreds of weapons" destined for cartels in Mexico were purchased in gun shops in Arizona.
In December two US assault rifles were found at the scene of a shootout where Customs and Border Protection agent Brian Terry was killed.
"We ask that if a government official made a wrong decision that they admit their error and take responsibility for his or her actions," Robert Heyer, the deceased agent's cousin, told the panel on Wednesday.
In January, the Mexican government released figures suggesting that at least 34,612 people had died in drug-related violence in Mexico since December 2006, although there is speculation the figure may now have passed 40,000.
Derp
Fuck Israel
The crime is lying under oath.Dilbert_X wrote:
No it isn't its the whole point, people were hysterical about blowjobgate already, the perjury happened at the end.FEOS wrote:
The rationale behind the investigation is irrelevant.
Was he under oath? Yes
Did he lie while under oath? Yes
It's cut and dried. Whether you and/or I agree with the investigation that led to the deposition is completely irrelevant. When under oath, one does not lie. Period.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
My point is in relation to all the hysteria leading up to that, I'm not saying perjury is a good thing.
Although in every court case one of the two parties usually lies on oath, its not as if its novel.
Still, he got away with it, a President lied on oath and wasn't impeached, crikey.
Although in every court case one of the two parties usually lies on oath, its not as if its novel.
Still, he got away with it, a President lied on oath and wasn't impeached, crikey.
Fuck Israel
and your boy obama has held up damn near every policy set forth by bush and cheney. herp derp.Varegg wrote:
all covered in shit ...eleven bravo wrote:
cheney's a dick
cept for getting osama bin laden policy
Tu Stultus Es
actually not true. that is if you believe the gitmo/enhanced interrogation stuff.
the thing about intel is that it has a shelf life. to say that any information obtained due to enhancded interrogations from 6 or 7 years ago was directly responsible for his elimination is silly. but thats not what im talking about. Fact, Obama increased UAV strikes overall and the use of special forces for the task theyve been trained for instead of as conventional troops like the previous adminsitartion. also, increased level of operations in pakistan.
Tu Stultus Es
Obama has proven to be a better commander in chief because he actually listens to his generals and doesnt fire em if they dont agree
Tu Stultus Es
also started an illegal war in libya
war is only illegal if you lose.11 Bravo wrote:
also started an illegal war in libya
no surprise there
Tu Stultus Es
i dont see much.....13urnzz wrote:
war is only illegal if you lose.11 Bravo wrote:
also started an illegal war in libya
winning
there
thats still not my point. i said their policies. gitmo, patriot act, etceleven bravo wrote:
Obama has proven to be a better commander in chief because he actually listens to his generals and doesnt fire em if they dont agree
i know - Ghadaffy is still in power, and we have no boots on the ground. but when is war 'legal'? when the serbs and bosnians fought, who was tried for war crimes?11 Bravo wrote:
i dont see much.....13urnzz wrote:
war is only illegal if you lose.11 Bravo wrote:
also started an illegal war in libya
winning
there
thats not my point. the bush adminsitration fired any general that wasnt a yes man for their policies. ignored advice so they could implement their own agenda. fighting a war on a budget but giving boat loads of money to contractors. sending 90k troops to iraq instead of 500k. forgetting about afghanistan.
Tu Stultus Es
yes i know. but, that is not what the cry baby euros like varegg cried about. jeez.eleven bravo wrote:
thats not my point. the bush adminsitration fired any general that wasnt a yes man for their policies. ignored advice so they could implement their own agenda. fighting a war on a budget but giving boat loads of money to contractors. sending 90k troops to iraq instead of 500k. forgetting about afghanistan.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2011-06-17 11:00:29)
War is only "legal" if the UN says ok.
no it's not. War is legal if Congress gives approval, or the president deems stipulations enumerated in the War Power Act are realized.
at least in the US
at least in the US
i mean via "international law." but yeah most democracies need the shit to go through their legislature but usually prez's bypass that shit and "intervene" afaik.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no it's not. War is legal if Congress gives approval, or the president deems stipulations enumerated in the War Power Act are realized.
at least in the US
And Obama didn't do the same? McChrystal ring a bell?eleven bravo wrote:
thats not my point. the bush adminsitration fired any general that wasnt a yes man for their policies. ignored advice so they could implement their own agenda. fighting a war on a budget but giving boat loads of money to contractors. sending 90k troops to iraq instead of 500k. forgetting about afghanistan.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat