Clinton Lied (What Did He Know and When Did He Know It) (page 5)

Reborn2002

Freeman-

I’m wondering yet again where you get your information. I though I paid pretty close attention to what the president said in the days, weeks, and months, before the war and I don’t ever recall the word ‘imminent threat’ being uttered by him, perhaps I missed that. I do however recall the phrase ‘building or gather threat’ being used, but I just don’t recall him ever saying Iraq was an imminent threat.

The British Intelligence report which the United States did not refute but instead used to garner support for the war stated Saddam Hussein had launch capability within 45 minutes.

Bush even said it himself.... twice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer

White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes Gist Was Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page A01
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."
The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.

45 minutes is not an imminent threat? Get real. Bush even said it himself. Going to drum up an excuse for that with your next post when caught red-handed?

I also like how you pick and choose which flaws of Bush to address. I notice you did not dispute the drunk driving charge, the cowboy attitude with the rest of the world, etc.

Let's have a look at the other things you said.

So let me get this straight, Mr. Bush as a private citizen holds stock in a company, he has a need for cash so he sells his shares to finance a business venture, namely to buy into a baseball team. This lawful action somehow equates Mr. Bush in your mind with people that did illegal things? I buy and sell stock too, so just what am I doing that is illegal? I’m sorry I just don’t get that. Why was it wrong for Mr. Bush to finance the purchase of a baseball team with the sale of some stock? Specifically what law was violated and what was his punishment for this wrongdoing?

You are obviously not aware of the facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,752706,00.html

Bush and Harken Energy

As George Bush announces a crackdown on corporate fraud, the president's own financial dealings from 10 years ago have come under renewed scrutiny, as Mark Tran explains

Wednesday July 10, 2002 What is the fuss over Mr Bush's financial transactions?
On June 22 1990, George Bush, then a director with a company called Harken Energy, sold 212,140 shares for $848,000 (£548,100). Almost exactly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a $23.2m loss, which caused its shares to drop to $2.375 from $3. The next day, Harken returned to $3, but fell to $1 at the end of 1990.
Did Mr Bush do anything wrong?
Although the law requires prompt disclosure of what are called insider sales, or sales by senior executives, Mr Bush did not inform the securities and exchange commission (SEC), the US market regulator, until 34 weeks later. So technically Mr Bush was at fault. Bush supporters say that he did fully disclose the transaction, and that "half of corporate America was filing forms late at that time".
How does Mr Bush explain the episode?
A decade ago, Mr Bush blamed the SEC, which he said had lost the forms he had filed. When the story resurfaced last week, the White House admitted that this had not been the case. Instead, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed the delay on "a mix-up with the attorneys", but could not shed light on how the confusion arose.
Why is this coming to light now?
Someone leaked the SEC report on the incident, presumably to embarrass Mr Bush. He has been thrown on the defensive because of his close business ties at a time when corporate America is in the dock for dodgy accounting and bloated executive salaries.
What did the SEC report say?
The SEC report, dated August 21 1991, said that staff had reviewed thousands of pages of documents, interviewed witnesses and met lawyers for Harken and Mr Bush. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Mr Bush had any inside information or advance knowledge of Harken's losses. The SEC recommended that the matter be closed.
Are there other questions about Harken?
Quite apart from Mr Bush's share dealings, the company came under scrutiny for a 1989 deal. In that transaction, Harken sold 80% of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership formed by Harken executives, who got most of the money for the deal by borrowing from Harken itself. The transaction allowed Harken to reduce the amount of debt on its balance sheet and to claim the proceeds of the sale as income.
How did that go down with the SEC?
The SEC thought that the income should have been deferred to future years. After months of discussions with the SEC, Harken in January 1991 restated its financial reports to add $9m to its loss column, nearly quadrupling its loss. It is the kind of financial manoeuvre that would be frowned upon now after the Enron scandal.
How does Mr Bush explain the transaction?
In a press conference this week, an irritated Mr Bush said: "There was an honest difference of opinion as to how to account for a complicated transaction. Sometimes the rules aren't as specific as one would expect, and therefore the accountants and the auditors make a decision."
How did Mr Bush link up with Harken?
Mr Bush became a director of Harken and a member of its audit committee when Harken paid $2m for Spectrum 7, a small loss-making energy company with large debts. Mr Bush was chief executive of Spectrum 7. When asked why Spectrum 7 was of interest to Harken, its founder, according to the US economist Paul Krugman, said: "His name was George Bush." At the time Mr Bush's father was president.
Is there a cloud over the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as well?
There are questions over Mr Cheney when he was chairman and executive of Halliburton, an oil services company, from 1995 to 2000. A Washington-based group, Judicial Watch, is suing Mr Cheney and the company, alleging accounting fraud - a charge the company describes as being without merit. At issue are accounting practices Halliburton adopted in 1998 that included some of its unresolved claims against engineering and construction clients as revenue, even though the amounts of money at stake were still in dispute. Before 1998, the company was more conservative, reporting such revenue only after settling with customers. Halliburton said in May that the SEC was looking into its accounting practices.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/11/news/bush_loan/

Bush: Don't do as I did
President's proposals would bar type of loans he got from Harken Energy, reports say. July 11, 2002: 2:57 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - President Bush borrowed money from oil company Harken Energy Corp. while he was a member of its board, a practice he condemned this week as part of his plan to curb corporate abuse and fraud, the White House acknowledged Thursday.
Bush took out low-interest loans totaling $180,375 from Harken in 1986 and 1988 and used the money to buy 105,000 shares of Harken (HEC: unchanged at $0.44, Research, Estimates) stock, part of a Harken program to encourage directors to buy stock, the White House said.
Democrats seized on the revelation, with the Democratic National Committee accusing the administration of "hypocrisy" and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., arguing the loans put the president in a "difficult position to criticize others."
"He did criticize (the) effort in his speech and yet it appears that is what he did himself," Daschle told reporters.
The issue of corporate loans became a hot topic and a focus of Bush's ire after WorldCom Group (WCOME: Research, Estimates), which is under investigation by federal regulators after reporting $3.8 billion in expenses improperly, revealed it loaned former CEO Bernard Ebbers $400 million to buy company stock.
"I challenge compensation committees to put an end to all company loans to corporate officers," Bush said in his Wall Street speech Tuesday on corporate responsibility.
Bush advisers said his loans were legal, appropriate and fully disclosed at the time and that such loans have been common in companies around the country. They dispute any suggestion that Bush is being hypocritical, arguing that the situation has changed.
"It's become clear (the practice) can be abused, as we've seen in some recent cases," Claire Buchan, White House deputy press secretary, told CNN, saying Bush believes the practice "needs to be fixed."
Harken referred questions to the office of its CEO, Michael Faulkner, who did not return calls for comment.
Bush's loans were at 5 percent interest, compared with the 7.5 percent prime lending rate at the time, according to published reports, and Harken didn't require Bush to pay back the principal for eight years.
In a buyback program in 1993, Harken took Bush's 105,000 shares, canceled his debt and gave him options for 42,503 shares. Bush never exercised those options and left the company later in 1993.
Bush's speech this week came amid criticism and questions about other of his practices at Harken, questions that have surfaced periodically during the course of his political career.
First, Democrats have questioned a stock sale Bush made in 1990, when he sold 212,000 shares -- to a mysterious, unnamed buyer who sought him out, according to a New York Times report -- for $848,000.
Bush used the money to pay off the $500,000 loan he took to buy a share of the Texas Rangers, according to the Times -- a move that ended up being the best of his business career, solidifying his fortune and launching his career in politics.
Bush reported that stock sale 34 weeks later than SEC regulations required, and he's been unable to explain why.
He once said the SEC lost his reporting paperwork, then spokesman Ari Fleischer recently said Harken's lawyers lost the paperwork. Finally, in a press conference this week, Bush himself said that he wasn't sure what had happened.
Democrats also have questioned the ethics of a deal that took place in 1989, when Bush was on the company's audit committee and board of directors, in which Harken executives used money borrowed from Harken to buy a Harken subsidiary and artificially boost Harken's cash flow.
The SEC forced Harken to adjust its books after that, but it also found that Bush had done nothing wrong. Since his stock sale took place before Harken adjusted its books, the SEC also investigated him for possible insider trading in 1990, when his father was President, but took no action against him.
In his press conference this week, Bush called the Harken charges old news and said the SEC needed to be strengthened to separate normal business dealings like his from the malfeasance happening at other companies.
"In the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures," he said.
Bush joined Harken in 1986 after it bought his failing energy business, Spectrum 7. Harken gave him the 212,000 shares of stock as a result of that deal, and he became a director and a consultant for the company.
Senator Daschle again challenged Bush to ask the SEC to make records on the insider trading investigation public.
"The way to resolve it is simply for the SEC to release the file so that there isn't any more outstanding question, that there isn't any doubt about what happened and why," Daschle said.

His actions were deemed legal at the time. I wonder how much of that had to do with his Daddy being President? That aside, it is indisputable fact now that the practices he committed then are the very same ones he condemns now as unethical. Do as I say, no as I do.

Comprende?

Safe to say that is to suffice for now. When you learn your facts, perhaps your rebuttal would be legitimate. Until then it is blind, unwavering support for a corrupt politician.

"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it." - Malcolm X, 1963

Trauma_Hound

"Me, I hated Clinton's presidency with a passion. Finally some integrity and honor have returned to the oval office." Hahahahahahahahahahaha, hey yeru, does your commanding officer know you do drugs?

Yerusalyim

TH,

Just because Bush won't buy into the liberal agenda you wan't to call him dishonorable. Clinton's solution to 9-11 would have been to bomb two aspirn factories instead of just one. Bush hasn't lied under oath...Bush isn't generally viewed as a womanizer...no Bush administration hacks are showing up dead in DC parks having committed "suicide" in a scenario where the laws of gravity are defied and blood runs up hill. Bush has tried to redefine the meaning of the word "IS". Bush hasn't charged his wife to develop a medical program that would consume 7% of the GDP and create the largest entitlement program ever (and wreck the economy to boot). Shall I go on?

Swickley

Typical Liberal..

Yeru --Thank you. Being labeled or described as a "liberal" is the greatest compliment that a person receive.

Abaddon

Yeru: are you telling me you've only just figured out all politicians lie?

... I thought you just had a charming and unfounded faith in Republican politicians!

teejay

Yeru,

In your view, has President Bush done anything wrong? If so, what?

freeman

Reborn you are completely in error on so many points that I do not know where to begin. I do not have the time or the will to devote to a complete rebuttal, so I will just touch upon one or two points.

No Reborn, 45 minutes is not an imminent threat.

What if it were true that New York could be destroyed with WMDs in lets say six to ten minutes, would that also be an imminent threat in your mind?

The fact is that New York can indeed be wiped out in such a short period.

There are nuclear subs just off the coast of the United States right now carrying WMDs that would make 9/11 pale in comparison. Fortunately those that are tasked with the protection of this nation actually do know what an imminent threat is and have taken the proper response to mitigate the existing threat level, which is in no way imminent, so that it never becomes an imminent threat. “Imminent threat” is in fact your emotionally charged words, not the somber reasoned words of Mr. Bush. Get the point?

As far as the credibility of the source that provided the 45-minute timeline, the papers got some of this wrong as they often do. But one thing that they did get correct is the fact that this intelligence comes from a single source. That is not the best form of Intel. To his credit, the gentlemen that provided this info has provided solid intelligence in the past.

What this individual said more or less is that <something> could be loaded and transported to front line positions in 45 minutes. This gentlemen is also one of several sources that provided information on the mobile labs, another <something> that has now been verified by physical evidence, or do you question that too? My question is why would he lie on this one point when much of the info he provided in the past has already proven to be correct?

I wonder, do you think Mr. Bush and the intelligence community at large ginned-up this entire story for some political gain? And do you seriously believe our military leaders had our soldier’s wear heavy restrictive bio-gear in 100 + degree weather, and be subjected to mandatory inoculations just to push an agenda ginned-up by Mr. Bush? How plausible is that?

In case you have not figured it out yet, let me spell it out for you. Part of the reason our soldier’s were ordered to remain partially clad in bio-gear with the rest of their gear nearby at all times was based on the very report you now question. At the time this Intel was deemed not only credible, but also actionable. I don’t question the report, but I do question your logic here.

On your point about Harken Energy, I think I do perhaps know just a tad more then you might think I know on this subject. I also believe you know substantially less then you should know, especially considering the accusations you make. Lets me show you just how little you really know about this subject. See if you are able to answer these very simple questions. Why did Harken suffer a loss? Specifically what caused it? Did Mr. Bush have any control or involvement over that loss? Did Mr. Bush know they would suffer a loss, was he even in a position to know? When the SEC looked at the disclosure statement that Mr. Bush lawfully made, what was the date that he signed it, did the date he signed the disclosure fall within the time period of the then existing regulations? Do you even know how long a period that is?

I’m not asking you to post your answers here or anywhere else. Just see if you can answer these questions for yourself with the knowledge you already have. If you can answer these questions for yourself, then you are well informed. And if you can’t answer these questions, then my friend IMHO you know substantially less about the subject then is necessary for you to make a proper assessment let alone make public accusations against someone’s character.

Regards,

Freeman

Yerusalyim

What has Bush done Wrong? He's blocking veterans from receiving their just dues for disability. Currently...what a vet recieves in disability is deducted from his/her retirement check. So if someone is awarded 50% disability, rather than getting more money...they get that portion of the retirement check tax free....every politician has done this since Carter...and before.

He's not been forceful enough on the side of Israel

He pushed for the medicade Drug Bill...HUGE GOVERNMENT SPENDING we should have less government..not more.

He didn't have the senate force the democrats into a real life filibuster on the issue of Mr Estrada, his court nominee.

He still coddles the Saudis...who clearly aren't our friends.

I can go on.

Now it's your turn...say somethings positive about Bush.

DIM

On a serious note I think taking away VA funding is just downright wrong. My father in law died in a VA hospital and those places are bad enough as it is - to take away more funding to pay for Iraq is just nuts. Lets screw past present and future veterans to pay for a war...right, that makes sense. give me a break.

Clinton Lied (What Did He Know and When Did He Know It)

seawolf

Reborn2002

Trauma_Hound

Yerusalyim

Swickley

Abaddon

teejay

freeman

Yerusalyim

DIM

Share this