Worst Presidential lie.

[Cptkernow]

[elwoodblues]

I vote for Monica, not because the lie itself was worse, but because the resulting impeachment and political fallout has detrimentally changed the tenor of American politics for years to come.

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote for Monica, not because the lie itself was worse, but because the resulting impeachment and political fallout has detrimentally changed the tenor of American politics for years to come.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont think the fall out from the Iraq war will detrimentally effect the tenor of American politics for decades then we must live on different planets.

Remember Vietnam.

Bills little indiscretion will be forgoten in no time as in comparison it is of no consequence. It didnt lead to any body bags.

[Cptkernow]

So far we have 5 confirmed partisan morons.

Anyone else.

[cardcounter0]

I'll go with the Monica Lie as being the "worse".

Because there was no reason to lie. I'm sure Clinton was first confronted with the rumor of an affair with Monica before it was made public. He should of immediately said, "DAMM RIGHT! And it was real gooooood. Next time, I'll even let you watch." At which point, I can imagine the Republican accusors just looking at each other with shocked looks on their faces, until finally Gingrich breaks the silence with "Well, guess I'll just go back to banging my secretary. No news here."

Now the WMD lie, is a real good lie. I mean, can you imagine any other scenario that would get America to invade and attack a country that hasn't been able to bother anyone for a decade because of embargoes, get bogged down in a Vietnam quagmire, and cost close to 900 US lives? I mean, it takes a really good lie for the American people to go along with something like that. Especially when there are such other pressing concerns, like actually going after the people who really did attack us.

Yep. That Monica lie is pretty second rate when compared to the WMD lie.

[elwoodblues]

Why do you assume that people who voted one way or the other are partisan morons? That seems like a silly premise to me. If you already knew the answer to the question (or didn't care what the answers would be) why would you waste your time posting it? I voted for Monica. I might very well be partisan and a moron, but my vote for Monica has nothing to do with that.

Your unstated assumption that anyone who would vote for Monica is a partisan moron ironically suggests that the label applies to yourself.

[Rushmore]

In the interest of not being a partisan moron...

I vote for "Evaporating, liquifying, and otherwise erasing tens of thousands of civilians will save the lives of even more soldiers who are sitting in the Sea of Japan, and even if this weren't a lie, it would be justified."

This is my vote.

[Cptkernow]

Good point.

One of the votes for Bill's lie might have been by Monica Lewinsky.

Now upto at least 6 people (Not shagged by Bill) who consider a lie about a shag worse than a lie that has killed 1000s.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I vote for Monica, not because the lie itself was worse, but because the resulting impeachment and political fallout has detrimentally changed the tenor of American politics for years to come.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it has resulted in a permanent change in political thought. The sad part is "how did the impeachment come about?" Yes, everyone knows he lied about Lewsinsky. But was Monica Lewinsky ever an issue of foreign policy, national intelligence or anything else that will directly affect Americans? I think not.

The whole Lewsinsky issue came about when a bunch of overzealous Republicans could not come up with a valid scandal within the Clinton White House. So they had to impeach a president on the basis of getting a blow job from a fat chick and then saying that nothing happened. While Clinton's act was not a good thing, the resulting mess that followed was way more damaging to the country as a whole. And Republicans are the ones to blame for that mess.

Someone might say "if Clinton didn't perform these acts, then the impeachment would never occurred." While this is true, if the act had never happened Republicans would have pressed another bogus issue to impeach him.

<font color="red">If something that minor is the basis for impeachment, then so be it. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to impeach Bush. ALL of these reasons have more merit than the Lewinsky scandal.</font>

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If something that minor is the basis for impeachment, then so be it. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to impeach Bush. ALL of these reasons have more merit than the Lewinsky scandal

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly. You wouldn't have said that prior to the Clinton impeachment.

[Utah]

First off, according to the bipartisan senate report Bush did not lie. Second, Clinton committed a felony and was willing to destroy an innocent person - its not just that he had sex.

third, your question is silly and completely misses the point. Dont compare the two. Why judge one person's scummingness against anothers? Judge them on their own merit.

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If something that minor is the basis for impeachment, then so be it. I can think of at least a dozen reasons to impeach Bush. ALL of these reasons have more merit than the Lewinsky scandal

[/ QUOTE ]
.
My point exactly. You wouldn't have said that prior to the Clinton impeachment.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that means American political attitudes have improved with free citizens more empowered to consider revoking the power of the president when he tells great big porkie pies that actualy have some physical and concrete effects over those citizens that have invested their mandate in his power.

Good job Bill. I see why you lied now.

[elwoodblues]

If Clinton committed a felony where was the indictment and conviction? If Ken Starr believed he could have gotten a conviction, he would have moved forward.

[cardcounter0]

So when they hang Bush for Treason, it really will all be Clinton's fault?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But that means American political attitudes have improved with free citizens more empowered to consider revoking the power of the president when he tells great big porkie pies that actualy have some physical and concrete effects over those citizens that have invested their mandate in his power

[/ QUOTE ]

While that's a great reason to not vote for someone, unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't list "great big porkie pies" as a grounds for impeachment.

[Utah]

You dont believe he lied to the grand jury? hmmmmm....

What one does and what one is charged with and what one is convicted of are completely different things.

[elwoodblues]

He probably lied. Is that perjury (which would be the felony that you are referring to)? I don't know that it meets the elements (apparently neither did Ken Starr).

[Sloats]

Washington and the cherry tree.

[Cyrus]

"Your question is silly and completely misses the point."

It's his point to define not yours. And the point he is making is that the Monica lie was relatively much less harmful to America that the lie about WMDs.

"Don't compare the two [presidential lies]. Why judge one person's scummingness against anothers? Judge them on their own merit."

Everything is, actually, graded comparatively. You are a scumbag, for instance, compared to, say, Mother Theresa. (As I am, I guess.) But compared to your neighbor you are possibly Mother Theresa.

This may help you in understand the points made in the other thread, about "GWB as a warlord". (Gawd, I pee laughing just typing those words..)

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
What one does and what one is charged with and what one is convicted of are completely different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's called a "fair trial" and it's every U.S. citizen's constitutional right. If everyone was convicted of what they were charged with, it wouldn't be a "fair trial."

If the Democrats could come up with a Ken Starr-type who would create the same atmosphere as when Clinton was impeached, WHO KNOWS what Bush would be charged with.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, according to the bipartisan senate report Bush did not lie. Second, Clinton committed a felony and was willing to destroy an innocent person - its not just that he had sex.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Clinton committed a felony" - That is the conservative's favorite line regarding this situation. Yes, he did. But why was he in front of a grand jury in the first place? The answer: Because Republicans couldn't find a valid reason to impeach him. Valid reasons include acts that are actually illegal. A President getting a BJ from a fat chick is a poor choice (or in bad taste, however you want to say it) but it's not illegal.

[ QUOTE ]
third, your question is silly and completely misses the point. Dont compare the two. Why judge one person's scummingness against anothers? Judge them on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Comparisons are what everything is about. This reminds me, why was Clinton's Whitewater "scandal" investigated so thoroughly while Bush has never had to even talk about his dealings in Harken Energy? This is insane, Whitewater was a small potatoes real estate deal and Clinton was raked over the coals for his involvement. Everything I have read about Bush's involvement with Harken Energy screams insider trading.

[natedogg]

I never cared about clinton's lewinsky stuff. Total waste of time.

I could care less about the Bush lies either. Anyone who didnt' think his arguments were highly spun is naive. Label it a "lie" or "spin" or even choose to believe him that he trusted the info. Who cares?

I won't be shedding any tears for Saddam or the Iraqis (Who are not soveriegn by the way). NO issue is black and white.

Going in was probably not worth it, but it wasn't worthless either. And whatever explanations were spun for the media at the time really don't matter, do they?

natedogg

[Utah]

Hu Cyrus,

Actaully, I found this to be one of your better posts. LOL

"It's his point to define not yours. And the point he is making is that the Monica lie was relatively much less harmful to America that the lie about WMDs.

Absolutely agree. I should have stated my comment differently.

Everything is, actually, graded comparatively. You are a scumbag, for instance, compared to, say, Mother Theresa. (As I am, I guess.) But compared to your neighbor you are possibly Mother Theresa.

To an extent yes. In this case though I think its a bad comparison to make and I think people are trying to use the comparison to exonerate Clinton, while, in reality, his actions stand on their own. Lets say Bush is a lying scumbag who dragged us into the war for oil profit. That would make Bush a mass murder. However, that in no way makes Clintons acts as less dreadful. If Bush was a saint would it make Clinton's acts worse? Of course not - thats silly.

To Clintons actions, I think people like to throw up a false argument - "its only about sex". Sure, thats true for the sex part, but what about all the other actions? doesnt it bother people that he was willing to destroy a young woman's life to protect his ass? I find that much worse than the lying to be honest. Maybe an exaggeration will make the point - what if he had killed Monica to cover it up and it was still found out. Would people still say, "it was only about sex?".

Finally, to the point about how the republicans and Ken Starr acted, maybe they were complete dirt bag, tried to take down a presidency in an unethical way, etc. etc. That makes the republicans and Ken Starr scumbags, BUT it does nothing to diminish what Clinton did.

I dont have a horse in that fight - I really just hate the poor logical arguments that are made. That bugs me more than anything.

This may help you in understand the points made in the other thread, about "GWB as a warlord". (Gawd, I pee laughing just typing those words..)

I understand your point there and I dont disagree with your logic. I simply disagree with you assessment of facts and you basis for comparison.

[Cyrus]

You could save a lot on the typing by just saying that you only care about yourself. (And that you only like winners!)

"I won't be shedding any tears for Saddam or the Iraqis (Who are not soveriegn by the way)."

What exactly do you mean, "they are not sovereign"? Iraq was a sovereign nation. There are about one hundred and fifty of 'em on the planet. Are we gonna next judge their sovereignty on the basis of how friendly they are to the United States?

You are well inside hubris territory.

[Cyrus]

"I simply disagree with you assessment of facts [on Iraq]."

I provided a link to the Report submitted by the General Accounting Office to the United States Congress. Here (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04902r.pdf) it is again. Those are the facts, somewhat conservatively stated (no pun intended), but the facts nevertheless. So, don't blame me and don't disagree with me either. Take it to your congressman.

Main findings for those that don't wanna read the whole damn document :

-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations...

-The country's court system is incredicly more clogged than before the war. Moreover, judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from "mass desertions", are "poorly trained" and "ill-equipped".

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called "significant insurgent attacks" skyrocketed from 411 in February 2004 to 1,169 in May 2004.

-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

And, by the way, Utah, I did not use the word "chaotic" anywhere in that thread to describe the current situation in Iraq! But I will accept your term, if only as a conciliatory gesture. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Hiding]

maybe no WMD but at least some 13 year olds aren't being tortured anymore either. All politics are spun I agree. Right, wrong or indifferent the world is better off without Saddam

[J_V]

Is it so bad (cuz its seems almost inevitable) that all countries act solely w/ their best interest in mind?

That's what all countries seem to do, and then they spend millions of dollars trying to convince their citizens and others around the world that their reasons were something
"more humane".

[natedogg]

I meant to say they are NOW sovereign. LOL

Sorry.

natedogg

[Utah]

Just so I understand this dire situation in Iraq:

1) $13 Billion has been poured into Iraq so far
2) The courts are clogged and the judges are targets
3) The Iraqi security and police force suck
4) Insurgent attacks skyrocketed
5) The electrical grid sucks

Thats it?? Thats the huge disaster in Iraq? Wow, you are holding Bush and Co. to a mighty high standard indeed. I mean - my God - only $13 Billion in free aid!!! Where is the humanity??!!

nd, by the way, Utah, I did not use the word "chaotic" anywhere in that thread to describe the current situation in Iraq! But I will accept your term, if only as a conciliatory gesture.

My mistake. I forgot that you leaped completely off the deep end and said that this report shows that Iraq is worse off. But duh - with only $13 billion in aid that is so obvious.

[jokerswild]

Hi welcher,
The above post could only be made by a below average intelligence human being.

[jokerswild]

Hi welcher,
Your grammar could use improvement. We'll forgive you for that. I often just type off the top of my head here.
Bill CLinton didn't destoy Minica Lewinsky. The whole affair has made her rich. Consensual oral sex is only againt the law in a few backwards states. No one died because of a few blowjobs.

[MMMMMM]

"No one died because of a few blowjobs."

How many would it take, then?

[daryn]

not sure if someone has said this already but here goes:


clinton's lie was 100% A LIE. the man knew what he was saying, and knew it wasn't the truth. LIE.


bush's statement could have been a lie. but do you really think so? what if he was given poor intelligence saying iraq has WMD? the CIA exists to give info to the president, who doesn't have time to "do his own investigating"...

if he was given bad intelligence, and he made statements based on it, can you really call it a LIE?

[natedogg]

I'm not saying that I don't care at all about anything that doesn't affect me. I'm saying that the Iraq situation is not black and white. Some good things have/will come of it. Some bad things have/will come of it.

Therefore, whether Bush stretched the truth or relied on bad intel when making statements about his intent re: Iraq seems irrelevant to me. Honestly, who cares what he said about it? He invaded Iraq! We should care about THAT.

Maybe he really believed Saddam was a threat and maybe he just wanted to impress his mistress. Whatever.

Argue the merits of the invasion and occupation. Don't waste your time focusing on whether or not his profferred justifications were entirely true. It's all subjective anyway since the right will gladly tell you they have found WMDs and nuclear material. (The amounts are so small it's embarassing to hear them tout this, but they do).

Also, you are aware that being wrong and telling a "lie" are two different things? No one has shown that he lied, only that he had wrong information.

natedogg

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]

clinton's lie was 100% A LIE. the man knew what he was saying, and knew it wasn't the truth. LIE.

bush's statement could have been a lie. but do you really think so? what if he was given poor intelligence saying iraq has WMD? the CIA exists to give info to the president, who doesn't have time to "do his own investigating"...

if he was given bad intelligence, and he made statements based on it, can you really call it a LIE?

[/ QUOTE ]


Bush said the following during his Jan 2003 State of the Union Address.

"Saddam Hussien recently sought signiciant quantities of uranium from Africa."

This is the infamous yellow cake incident. The CIA had allready briefed the Whitehouse (It is on record) that this inteligence was totaly false and was obviously so. Saddam had not tried to procure uranium from Africa. The administration totaly ignored the report of Joseph Wilson and kept pushing this blatent lie.

Therefore did Bush knowingly lie?

YES.

[Chris Alger]

From your posts I believe we all realize that (as long as he keeps your taxes down) you could care less if the President is a terrorist or war criminal, or had children incinerated to "impress his mistress." Most people believe that mass killing committed in their name requires some defensible reason and if it's done in our name without one its a pretty bad thing. Obviously, you don't. We get it.

[ QUOTE ]
No one has shown that he lied, only that he had wrong information.

[/ QUOTE ]
We also realize that wilfull naivte also helps assuage feelings of personal guilt. There are several people on this forum who are foolish and ignorant enough to believe this, but I doubt that you're one of them.

[Cyrus]

[sarcastically] "$13 Billion has been poured into Iraq so far ... That's it?? That's the huge disaster in Iraq? I mean - my God - only $13 Billion in free aid!!! Where is the humanity??!!... Iraq is worse off, with only $13 billion in aid that is so obvious."

Oh, brother. And I thought only liberals were under the illusion that problems get cured by throwing money at 'em! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Well, keep throwin' the greenbucks, fellas, it's your tax money. (They are coming back to the U.S. anyway -- broad hint) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[natedogg]

Let me clarify for you. I know it's hard for you to comprehend anything other than a stark black and white division of people who loathe the president and everything about him and those who love him.

I do not support the war in Iraq. I would not have invaded if I were in charge. I did not vote for Bush and I never will.

But just because I don't think we should be there it doesn't mean I subscribe to such hyperbolic hysteria as evinced by your statements ".. whether the President is a terrorist or war criminal, or had children incinerated to 'impress his mistress.'"

I don't support the war, but I don't believe the president is a war criminal or terrorist for doing it. I also acknowledge that the results of the war are not 100% negative. Is that too hard for you to comprehend? Probably.

So, whatever nonsense he spouted to the media before invading is irrelevant to me.

Let me put it this way. If it turned out that the CIA info was gold, would you suddenly support the war and Bush? I doubt it, and that shows that the "LIE" is irrelevant.

One good sign that you've probably drunk the kool-aid is your inability to distinguish between good arguments that support your position and bad arguments that support your position.

natedogg

[GWB]

I find it funny that 80% of the people here voted for the "lie" that wasn't actually a lie.

[Chris Alger]

Since no one has accused you of supporting the war, I'm not sure what you think I've misunderstood. I said "you could care less" about whether Bush's reasons for the war were valid or not. You started this subthread by identifying yourself as one of those that "don't care either way" and that you "could care less" about the stated reasons for the war. You underscored your utter lack of concern by suggesting that you wouldn't even care if Bush launched the war to "impress his mistress." It follows from this that you could also care less if the war had any remotely defensible purpose or amounts to so much terrorism and criminal aggression. You seem reluctant to face the consequences of refusing to "care less," but that's what they are, obviously and by definition, if we are to take you at your word.

As for the rest, your generic take on events (nothing is "black and white"; "everything is subjective"; the war results weren't "100% negative") amount to meaningless buzzwords that apply equally to everything.

[MMMMMM]

"It follows from this that you could also care less if..."

No, Chris, it doesn't "follow from" that at all. Not in the least. That someone cares very little about "A" does not imply that they also care very little about "B", even if "A" and "B" are related.

That Natedogg doesn't care about the reasons given for the going to war does not mean he doesn't care if the war itself was a good thing on balance or not. It does not imply that he doesn't care if the war was justifiable.

One can have the view that the war was good in the balance even if one does not agree with or care about some of the reasons which were initially advocated for going to war.

Your statement that it "follows", however, is some evidence of your poor habits of logical thought in such discussions. I would even go so far as to suggest that you take a course in logic before you engage in any more political discussions or activities--it will make your discussions smoother and you will score more points in any arena. And you won't be making ridiculous statements like A follows from B when it clearly does not.

[theBruiser500]

"clinton's lie was 100% A LIE. the man knew what he was saying, and knew it wasn't the truth. LIE."

I haven't read this whole thread, so I'm probably repeating what someone else has said but... 100% a lie on something that 100% does not matter, so it counts as nothing. Just 5% lie on WMD is worse by orders of magnitude because it's on something so pertinent.

BTW, my thanks to the starter of this thread for summing of my exact thoughts on this issue.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
That Natedogg doesn't care about the reasons given for the going to war does not mean he doesn't care if the war itself was a good thing on balance or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first place, he didn't say he didn't care about the reasons given, he said he didn't care whether the reasons given were true or not. Secondly, he might well think the war was justifiable, but he can't consistently claim to "care less" about whether ther reasons given were true while caring something about whether Bush is guilty of war crimes or terrorism.

The reasons given for the war were (1) that Iraq, by virtue of its actual or potential possession of WMD and its intention to use such weapons in a war of aggression or by providing them to terrorists, constituted an immediate threat to the national security of the U.S. or its "allies;" and (2) that U.S. military force was necessary to "liberate" the people of Iraq from their government (as in "Operation Iraqi Freedom").

If these reasons were falsely given, then what we're left with is a war of conquest by the U.S. in the pursuit of poltical, military or economic aggrandizement. War for these reasons amounts to aggression, "a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify," according to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in his capacity of head of the American prosecution staff at Nuremburg. As the late Nuremburg prosecutor Walter Rockler (http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/html/0523_ct.html) put it in the Chicago Tribune (May 23, 1999), "to initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." A war of aggression is quite a bit worse than retail terrorism, and indeed the war against Iraq has killed far more civilians than the horrifics terrorist attacks of 9/11.

So, yes, if one does not care if the U.S. waged an aggressive war against Iraq, then by definition one cannot care if the officials responsible for it are war criminals or, to bring them to a lower plane of evil, simply terrorists.

[ACPlayer]

clinton's lie was 100% A LIE.

Not really. It depends on your definition of IS. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that 80% of the people here voted for the "lie" that wasn't actually a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a lie.

[MMMMMM]

For your train of thought to be correct it would appear that natedogg would have to have said he doesn't care about all of the reasons given--and there were more than two--otherwise the chain of reasoning breaks down. Also, "imminent" or imediate" has been hashed over at length before, as to whether that was the principal argument. IMO even a potential future threat from Saddam would be unacceptable, as he has demonstrated ample murderous intent.

Anyway perhaps I spoke a bit too hastily and perhaps my conclusions about your reasoning are not 100% solid--as I think your conclusions about natedogg's position are not 100% solid. If so, I apologize. Still I do think you are oversimplifying his position to some extent and claiming a sequitur which is less than certain.

[Utah]

You obviously think that GWB and his group are terrrorists and that the US is a terrorist nation. Lets ignore that for now.

And for the moment, lets even ignore Iraq. And lets pretend for a moment that you are concerned with defending the interests of the U.S. (I know - massive leap).

Please tell me the rules of engagement that the U.S. should follow. Obviously, you dont like the current ones. I am most interested in how you think the U.S. should deal with terrorist threats if no act of agression has been committed yet by the terrorist or nation.

Also, what is the standard for evidence that you would use? Obviously, intelligence is almost never 100%.

Do you think the U.S. should simply and completely step out of world affairs?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The reasons given for the war were (1) that Iraq, by virtue of its actual or potential possession of WMD and its intention to use such weapons in a war of aggression or by providing them to terrorists, constituted an immediate threat to the national security of the U.S. or its "allies;" and (2) that U.S. military force was necessary to "liberate" the people of Iraq from their government (as in "Operation Iraqi Freedom").

If these reasons were falsely given, then what we're left with is a war of conquest by the U.S. in the pursuit of poltical, military or economic aggrandizement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're not buying the bad intel argument as laid out by the Senate Intelligence committee in their recent report. I'm not stating that using bad intel is an excuse either. I still believe "buck stops" with the president and he bears responsibility for relying on bad intel. Besides the conclusion you reach one might also reach the conclusion that it was incompetance and recklessness. Let's turn back the clock and look at some scenarios had the U.S.A. followed another approach How would you have proceeded from that point? I realize there are many options and I realize that one could argue that diplomacy could have produced more desirable results for all concerns (including the Iraqi people) and such things as U.N. sanctions were wrong . So what would you have advocated as the right approach in general.

[Chris Alger]

Since it's so ridiculous, I'm not sure how vigorously the GOP/pro-war propgandists and apologists will promote the notion of Bush being misled by "bad intel." The Senate Intelligence Committee's Report doesn't support it because it "did not address whether the Bush administration misused intelligence in making the case for war" (LA Times). There's also plenty of evidence that Bush &amp; Co. clownishly lied about the actual claims in the bad intel and pressured the CIA to cook the books in the first place, although the latter is subject to the usual partisan dispute. And while it hardly exonerates officials, the "bad intel" argument also ignores the role of the right-wing propagandists who reliably exaggerated and lied about what the White House was saying.

Regardless of all of this, you're right about the need to have the buck stop someplace. If it didn't, the government could lie about everything by assigning different components of the lies to different agencies or officials.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides the conclusion you reach one might also reach the conclusion that it was incompetance and recklessness

[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the sense that we ordinarily use those terms. Those terms could conceivably apply to more spur-of-the-moment judgments like the Mayaguez affair or Clinton's decision to bomb Sudan, but you can't use "negligence" or "stupidity" to categorize a war campaign waged daily for two years, bitterly disputed in every forum where it was raised, when much of the world was insisting that no good evidence of any threat existed. Ignoring the obvious intentional elements of this affair amoujnts to twisting words into meanginglessness. No one excuses the Nazi and Communist crimes on the grounds that the perpetrators might have "really believed" their own nonsense, that in their heart of hearts they might have thought they were doing good or became caught up in a system beyond their control, and so forth. Moreover, there's a point where "recklessness" is no defense even if we presume it. People are convicted of "reckless" murder all the time (in legal parlance, "depraved indifference to human life").

The clincher to this point is that the UN inspections blew the quality of the intel and the case for war out of the water, but made not a dent in the U.S. determination to invade (or the media's giving the White House the benefit of any doubts).

[ QUOTE ]
So what would you have advocated as the right approach in general?

[/ QUOTE ]
My "right approach" ironically resembles what most people accept as our actual approach to things but, in my view, doesn't come close. I think our policy should match the State Department's rhetoric. We shouldn't reort to military violence or support terrible regimes except as a last resort when the need is clear and unambiguous. Our foreign policy should recognize that ideals are concrete and pragmatic concerns of most Americans, to the point where they are willing to sacrifice short-term material or political gains, especially when the latter primarily accrue to elites.

Overall I think there are serious systemic and institutional constraints that preclude the U.S. from adopting any kind of "right approach," but regarding Iraqi WMD I would have followed the majority consensus on the Security Council: continued inspections. As for "liberation," although this pretext is a cynical joke by those who care nothing for democracy anywhere, including here, there are certainly a lot of things that could ameliorate the horrors of Saddam that the U.S. never tried, such as human rights monitors and pressure for reform. The problem here is that it amounts to the U.S. trying to get Iraq's leaders to share power with third parties (like the people of Iraq), when the whole point of our policy is to get them to share or surrender power to us, which in practice means the elite.

[daryn]

i'm not saying clinton's lie was anything serious. well, actually it was because he was under oath. but i'm saying, the actual act he performed didn't bother me. who cares?

but bush... do you guys really think he is an evil lying man? you gotta be stupid! i see bush as a good guy who means well, but he is surrounded by a ton of people with a ton of motives.

i think bush, while easily influenced, actually means well.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me the rules of engagement that the U.S. should follow. Obviously, you dont like the current ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
The rules we should follow are the rules I'm accusing Bush and Co. of breaking, violations for which we've hanged people before. The UN Charter and the Fourth Geneva Convention, for starters. There's a whole body of international law that we piously invoke when are interests are served but simply ignore when it suits us otherwise. The rules could probably be better, but the ones there now are just fine.

[ QUOTE ]
I am most interested in how you think the U.S. should deal with terrorist threats if no act of agression has been committed yet by the terrorist or nation.

[/ QUOTE ]
How to deal with a threat of terrorist aggression unacompanied by any act of terrorist aggression? This sounds like your own monsters under the bed paranoia than any real world problem (endmic these days, IMO), so you'd have to describe the particulars.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what is the standard for evidence that you would use? Obviously, intelligence is almost never 100%.


[/ QUOTE ]
The standard for a state resorting to mass violence that will predictably kill and injure thousands obviously should be very high, at least as high as the threshold which we insist that other countries comply with before doing the same to us.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the U.S. should simply and completely step out of world affairs?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[trippin bily]

Clearly bush did not lie. How many different agencies have to say that THEY are the ones that gave bush the wrong intel before the bush haters stop telling that lie?

[trippin bily]

quote
Bills little indiscretion will be forgoten in no time as in comparison it is of no consequence. It didnt lead to any body bags.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary. Bill spent a year plus defending himself instead of this country. We showed weakness against numerous terrorist attacks during bills folies. Bill Clinton is at least partially responsible for the rise of terrorism against the U.S.

[adios]

Thanks for the response. Having the buck stop with the presidency does not make incompetency or recklessness excusable at all. If I implied such I certainly didn't mean to do that.

You wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
As for "liberation," although this pretext is a cynical joke by those who care nothing for democracy anywhere, including here, there are certainly a lot of things that could ameliorate the horrors of Saddam that the U.S. never tried, such as human rights monitors and pressure for reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok point well taken.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that it amounts to the U.S. trying to get Iraq's leaders to share power with third parties (like the people of Iraq), when the whole point of our policy is to get them to share or surrender power to us, which in practice means the elite.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it that you don't forsee the Allawi government morphing into a government chosen through free and open democratic elections for lack of a better term.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it funny that 80% of the people here voted for the "lie" that wasn't actually a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it funny that you think that my statement is a lie.

But I'm not surprised.

[sameoldsht]

I only see one lie in the poll - the one about shagging Monica. I specifically remember the finger waving "I did not have sex with that woman..." speach he arrogantly gave before the entire country.

Regarding WMDs, I guess these are all lies too?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

[MMMMMM]

^

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
So I take it that you don't forsee the Allawi government morphing into a government chosen through free and open democratic elections for lack of a better term.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anything is possible but I'd put the likelihood of this at nearly zero. For one, the U.S. has no incentive to allow, much less promote, a free and democratic Iraq. Any such country would be opposed to a permanent U.S. military presence, indifferent or opposed to the elite pro-U.S. Arab regimes, tolerant toward Iran, hostile toward Israel, in favor of oil nationalization or at least protectionism in favor of local development, and so forth. It also doesn't appear that the U.S. has given the new government much room to maneuver. The U.S. must continually occupy Iraq to keep the government propped up, holds the purse strings to "reconstruction", controls investment capital (because no one can invest in Iraq without U.S. government-backed insurance), and (in Bremer's last days) rammed through "decrees" ensuring that the same key officials will remain in power for 5-year terms (e.g., the head of domestic security), meaning that the real levers of power will be operated by our guys regardless of who Iraqis vote for in 2005.

The most likely scenario is for Alawi or whatever strong man that replaces him to try to energize the Shiites by demonizing the Sunnis (and maybe the Kurds) and then respond to the security problem with the usual state terror and repression, which in turn will continue to fuel the insurgency. Something close to the current level of violence could continue, perhaps off and on, for years or even generations. This isn't a problem that necessarily has any solution.

The only thing that is certain is that, however the government of Iraq is constituted and whatever it does, it will be routinely descirbed as free and democratic by U.S. officials as long as it sees things our way.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
...we all realize that...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people believe that...

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We get it.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We also realize...

[/ QUOTE ]

We? Most people? Who the heck are you to speak for "us" amigo? /images/graemlins/blush.gif Speak for yourself...

[nothumb]

sameold,

The fact that many other people, some of them liberals, supported the war in Iraq does not mean that the WMD's are there. When I see them, I'll believe them. Why, just today, the Senate released a report that said Saddam posed about as much threat as the bottom of the Orioles batting order.

Also, keep in mind that some statements made in support of the war by Democratic and Republican members of Congress were issued after they viewed the same intelligence Colin Powell gave to the UN - intelligence that has been since determined to be spotty at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

I think you're deflecting the discussion from the main point. Bush and his administration asserted unequivocally that Saddam posed a real, immediate threat in several different ways. They have backed away from those statements like rats from a sinking ship. Because they were false.


NT

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
but bush... do you guys really think he is an evil lying man? you gotta be stupid! i see bush as a good guy who means well, but he is surrounded by a ton of people with a ton of motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with you here. He's justa dumb idiot who is used by some very manipulative people.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with you here. He's justa dumb idiot who is used by some very manipulative people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Bush benefits when people think he's dumb. It sounds weird, but I think it plays right into him in a way. People like him 'cause he's an "average" guy (yeah right.) So he doesn't mind people calling him dumb - he just acts like it's liberals being elitists, all the while still letting that impression play when he wants someone else to take the fall.

I hold Bush fully responsible for his actions, as I would anyone who calls himself president.

NT

[natedogg]

We're talking about a guy who believes in the rapture, a bunch of other born again nonsense. He's not too bright.

natedogg

[ACPlayer]

How about doing a worthwhile analysis.

Putting aside politics let us talk about executive decision making. If you ever worked in any large organization you will be aware that the various managers, with their various agendas all have opinions about what should be done about a problem. Having worked with many a top executive, let me assure you that when the CEO looks to make a difficult decision he a) performs a great deal of due diligence to try and make the right decision regardless of the opinions offered by all and sundry. b) when the decision is made it is HIS responsibility in making the evaluation and executing the plan and lastly c) good executives dont make decisions and then perform a due diligence to support their decision.

So, the sqwaking that goes on in political talk prior to the decision is sqwaking. The good executive should be ignoring that sqwaking, approaching the problem with an open mind and then deciding if this is the right thing to do. Bush did the opposite - he wanted to go to war in Iraq and went looking for reasons.

But then all the people who are supporting Bush's decision making capability would not know good decision making processes or clear analytic thinking if it hit them on their ample behinds.

His grade as an executive remains F.

[mr. oats]

I didn't even really want to get involved in this thing because it is impossible to change anyone's mind at this point. Most people have come to a conclusion on one side or the other. However, I am replying to this thread for one reason and that is the constant use of misinformation by those on the left to argue their points. Most telling is that you know you are not giving the complete truth and are editing out those facts that do not support your case.

Case in point.
[ QUOTE ]
Bush said the following during his Jan 2003 State of the Union Address.

"Saddam Hussien recently sought signiciant quantities of uranium from Africa."


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, did the president say those specific words in that specific order? Yes. However you very conveniently edited the sentence in a way to make it misleading. The whole quote is:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

At the very least you should have written the quote like this, "...Saddam Hussien recently sought signiciant quantities of uranium from Africa." While still misleading, it would at least alert the reader to the fact that you are using only a portion of a longer quote. Still that would only be fair if the elipses were used to identify a portion of a quote that was not germane to the sentence as a whole. But here of course it is.

The point here is that the president NEVER said himself that Iraq had sought or obtained uranium. His statement during the State of the Union was a statment of FACT as to the British government's intel. You wrote.
[ QUOTE ]
The CIA had allready briefed the Whitehouse (It is on record) that this inteligence was totaly false and was obviously so

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is simply untrue. It was then and REMAINS TODAY A FACT that British intelligence believed that Saddam had attempted to procure the uranium. The British government today stands by their intelligence on this matter.

"In the 1980's Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 or more tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence."

This is a direct (and complete) quote from Tony Blair as he addressed Parliment in July of last year. The average person does not know that Saddam purchased uranium from Niger in the 1980's. That sir is a fact. If we took a poll right here, right now, I would guess that 99% of liberals would say that Iraq NEVER purchased uranium from Niger and 90% of conservatives would say the same thing. The current British intel, while questioned by some due to the forged documents fiasco, was pointed out by the Prime Minister to have come from separate intelligence sources. Intelligence that the British still believe.

Still more info comes in on this case daily. A few days ago the Financial Times was back with more news: an independent British commission investigating the government's use of intelligence during the runup to the war in Iraq, the paper reported on Wednesday, "is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger."

Lastly, you state:
[ QUOTE ]
The administration totaly ignored the report of Joseph Wilson and kept pushing this blatent lie.


[/ QUOTE ]

Try this quote on for size. It comes from a recent book by a former US Ambassador. You win a cookie for guessing the author.

"In 1999, Saddam's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf approached an official of Niger to talk about expanding trade, an approach the official interpreted as a possible attempt to buy uranium."

If you guessed Joe Wilson, I owe you a cookie. The very man whom you claim denied any connection between Iraq and Niger as far as uranium purchases says the exact opposite in his book.

I understand that in the fervor to make salient points on a complicated matter, often people accidentally misquote or use poor judgement concerning what they write or say. But that does not appear to be the case here. So I ask, why do liberals, when the actual facts are available for anyone to ascertain, continue to espouse non-truths as fact? You know full well that what you are saying is untrue yet repeatedly regurgitate the same pabulum? Reasonable people can hope to have reasoned debates about controversial issues. But as a condition of the debate, both sides need to at least agree to present the facts in an unbiased way. What you are doing is INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING people to score debate points.

I'd submit that debating with someone willing to intentionally mislead his audience by misquoting some (the president) and suppressing the condratictory staements of others (the prime minister and US ambassador) is a useless endeavor.

- mr. oats

[GWB]

An excellent post that correctly points out what some posters do on this forum to distort the truth.

I continue to find it funny that 80% of the people here voted for the "lie" that wasn't actually a lie.

[MMMMMM]

...though I suspect many simply spout these untruths as fact due to ignorance rather than ulterior motive. Still, "facts" or non-facts" need to be cleared up if any meaningful debate is to take place. Thank you for taking the time to set the record straight.