Mr. Bush said he had asked Mr. Walsh to provide him with a copy of his testimony to the prosecutor, which he would make public.
But it's a lie even to imply that Bush ever testified under oath, right Bill? I guess that makes Bush a liar right there.
Walsh argued that some of these notes would have had to be furnished to Weinberger. They could have led not only to President Bush being called as a witness but to his prosecution for perjury. "In light of President Bush's own misconduct, we are gravely concerned about his decision to pardon others who lied to Congress and obstructed an official investigation."
I'm a liar because I happen to believe Lawrence Walsh rather than George Bush. Do you believe George Bush was "out of the loop", as he publicly proclaimed? Do you think he told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God" to Lawrence Walsh? I think he lied. I've got Lawrence Walsh's opinion to back me up. What have you got?
As for changing the subject, there's another double standard there, where regurgitating every accusation, innuendo, and rumor about any allegation made against Clinton is "on topic" (not to mention "factual" and "substantial"), whereas any comparison with previous Presidential investigations is "a historical dodge". On this particular dialogue with Good Christian Dwight, I wasn't the one who brought in "decline of the west due to end of school prayer, and other liberal plots". Some might think that was changing the subject a bit.
Personally, I don't thing your slurs are all that innocuous, either. |
