Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congressmembers rule: No calling Bush a liar

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:09 PM
Original message
Congressmembers rule: No calling Bush a liar
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Congress_members_agree_No...

Congressmembers rule: No calling Bush a liar
Michael Roston
Published: Monday July 16, 2007



A Congressional Democrat has been reined in for calling President George W. Bush a 'liar' during a Thursday hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, according to the Monday edition of the newspaper Roll Call. (subs. req.)

"Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) offered a lengthy criticism of Bushs record toward the end of Thursdays hearing, which included a statement that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq in 2003," writes Susan Davis. "Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) offered an objection on the grounds that Watts words were 'unparliamentary' and violated House rules on debate and decorum that forbid personal attacks on Members, the president or vice president."

The exchange occurred just before the end of the hearing that expected to receive testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, who failed to appear. She cited the White House's exercise of 'executive privilege.'

Davis notes that a problem then occurred.

"Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Snchez (D-Calif.) countered that the words were not 'unparliamentary,' which parliamentarians and leadership aides on both sides of the aisle later agreed was the wrong procedural call," she writes.

Cannon and his fellow Republicans then failed in a vote that attempted to 'take down' Watt's words. But because Rep. Snchez's ruling was said to interfere with House precedent on the question, Rep. Cannon threatened "to take it to the House floor in a privileged resolution."

The two sides subsequently negotiated a compromise in which Snchez agreed to vacate her decision that the words were not 'unparliamentary' in a subsequent hearing.

Cannon is not a stranger to controversy of his own over strong statements. He recently called former US Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias an 'idiot' in a Fox News broadcast.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. It is against House rules. However, the beauty of it is, Bush was called
a liar and publicly and even if the language is withdrawn, it still happened. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. thats right, its out there i'm sure on you tube somewhere
and when I heard it as it was said I pumped my fist in the air and hollered alright without even thinking, just a reflex I've been wanting to show for some time I guess because it sure came smooth and natural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Calling Bush a Liar is not a personal attack, it's a statement of FACT.
STOP CAVING DEMOCRATS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VP505 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I agree
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. That is absolutely correct.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 01:23 PM by AndyA
The fact is: BUSH IS A LIAR and even he has admitted it publicly.

Facts are always appropriate for the record. You can call it an untruth, a misleading statement, an erroneous statement, or whatever you want, but when it's done intentionally, IT'S A LIE.

George Bush is, in fact, A LIAR.

Edit: spelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. The irony is that it was called "non-parliamentary."
In Parliament, by contrast, stronger language is commonplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. More New Rules: 2+2 does not equal 4
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 01:13 PM by baldguy
The sky is not blue.

The sun does not rise in the east and set in the west.

Water is not wet
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. BUSH IS A LIAR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. see, Congress, it's easy!
you're not hurt, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelgb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. actually I said it with such glee that I bumped my head on the wall behind me
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 02:27 PM by mikelgb
ouch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Ected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. A Lie Isn't A Lie Until It's Proven in Court
Or during impeachment proceedings.

Step One: Impeach the bastard.

Step Two: Prove his lies.

Step Three: Call him a liar.

Now THAT'S parliamentary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Most false thing I've ever read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Ected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Why Do You Think * Refuses to Speak Under Oath?
Perjury, baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. See Urban Dictionary entry for Liar
liar fake lie bitch bullshit asshole loser lying poser cheater lies idiot bullshitter cheat fraud hypocrite moron whore evil bush phony stupid dumbass slut thief cunt fool george w. bush false george bush republican shit deceiver jerk fibber gay president douchebag faker lazy traitor dubya fag liberal murderer nazi player politician politics tony blair bastard

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=liar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. decorum ...yes, let's be polite about a lying torturing thug
LOL

People have lost their fucking minds...

and some even consider it a mark of superiority to be polite to and about a war criminal

Well trained

lololol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. So the Truth is now a personal attack?
Hey Cannon, go fuck yourself!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. that wraps up any impeachment discussions, eh?
Nancy gets what she wants - a plausible reason why we cannot put it on the table - because the house ruled that we can't accuse him of lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. The words 'lie' and 'liar' are banned in the British House of Commons; but...
MPs can usually find a way to get around the rule. One MP once accused another of uttering 'terminological inexactitudes'. A favourite term, based on a reluctant admission by a member of the Thatcher government, is 'economical with the truth'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
17. And which one of that august group referred to President Clinton as a "scumbag"?
Was it Dan "shooting watermelon/illegitimate father" Burton?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/c...
<snip>
A bitter dispute has erupted in the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee over Chairman Dan Burton's description of President Clinton as a "scumbag" and his decision to make public audiotapes of former associate attorney general Webster L. Hubbell's prison telephone conversations.

Waxman also circulated a letter to other House members in which he quoted comments Burton (R-Ind.) made last week to the editorial board of the Indianapolis Star. According to the newspaper's account, Burton said: "If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he'd be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm after him."

"Please ask yourself whether this is the attitude and approach toward congressional investigations that the American people have a right to expect," Waxman wrote to his colleagues.
<snip>

Pot, meet kettle.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. Well, it makes sense: telling the truth is against the pols' rules.
Hurrah for Watt!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
21. They also ruled that water cannot be termed 'wet' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC