WMDs the final word? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Taxman

01-26-2004, 06:26 PM

As an aside, I also find it hopelessly ironic that Clinton lying about sleeping with another woman resulted in all kinds of problems for him (perjury or not, it was not an impeachable offense. He was disbarred as he should have been but give me a break. I want my tax dollars spent on the investigation back) while Bush if not lying, heavily misleading the American public about something that resulted in 500+ American deaths, garners a little contreversy but no major problems. Also why didn't the administraion ever provide the information requested by congress concerning the intellegence they had about a possible terrorist attack pre 9/11? I do know that some evidence is currently building against the administration in this arena as well. If nothing else, he was, to borrow a favorite phrase of adios, stating opinion as fact (a grave offense) and this opinion was based on tenuous evidence at best. You can't just cite WMDs as a primary reason of invading Iraq and then recant and give other reasons as equally or more important after it appears that there were no WMDs.

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 06:38 PM

"Kay has officially stated that he believes it unlikely that there were any WMDs."

No, he stated that he does not think there are any WMD's in Iraq now.

Kay definitely does think there were WMD's (or WMD components) in Iraq, and he thinks they were transported to Syria.

On Jan. 25, 2004, David Kay said this:

(excerpt)
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." (end excerpt)

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml

Taxman

01-26-2004, 06:46 PM

Yes you've already provided this information. Say what you will about this slight swing, but he has stated now (today) that he does not believe there ever were WMDs in Iraq. It's all over the news as we speak. "unspecified materials" doesn't really mean much anyway, even if some of them potentially could be used in the formation of WMDs.

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 06:52 PM

"WMD components" don't count anymore then? heh.

Don't worry, we'll find them when we go into Syria (probably after the election).

andyfox

01-26-2004, 07:25 PM

Even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in Iraq, the U.S.-led war was justified because it eliminated the threat that Saddam Hussein might again resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Monday.

Saddam's willingness to use such weapons was sufficient cause to overthrow his regime, Ashcroft told reporters, alluding to the use of chemical and biological arms against Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war.
"Weapons of mass destruction including evil chemistry and evil biology are all matters of great concern, not only to the United States but also to the world community. They were the subject of U.N. resolutions," Ashcroft said.

So, according to our chief law enforcement officer, it doesn't matter if we went to war to eliminate the WMDs and they're not found; Saddam might resort to evil science once again, since he did it in the 1980s.

Mr. Ashcroft neglected to point out, of course, that the United States supplied components of the evil science used in the 1980s, as well as the aircraft with which to deliver it. And after all he had it then, abetted by us, why not go to war over it two decades later?

If Bush were smart, he'd tell Ashcroft to shut up; Ashcroft has Howard-Dean-Foot-in-the-Mouth Disease.

Can you imagine the ridicule, had Hussein invaded the United States and overthrown its government, a statement like the following would have been greeted with by the world community, especially if Hussein had supplied the chemical components and transportation equipment used to deploy them?:

"Even if weapons of mass destruction are never found in the United States, the Iraq-led war was justified because it eliminated the threat that the U.S. government might again resort to "evil chemistry and evil biology," Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein said Monday.

The U.S. governnment's willingness to use such weapons was sufficient cause to overthrow his regime, Hussein told reporters, alluding to the use of chemical and biological arms against the Vietnamese in the late 1960s and 1970s during the Vietnam War. "Weapons of mass destruction including evil chemistry and evil biology are all matters of great concern, not only to Iraq but also to the world community. They were the subject of U.N. resolutions," Hussein said.

Let's face the facts:

-All governments lie, especially when going to war.

-All governments distort intelligence to make it conform with what they already know and/or believe and would like the public to know and/or believe.

-All governments cover up some of their true reasons for going to war, especially governments that are facing reelection.

-Many of the primary figures in the current Bush administration had been calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein for many years, long before 9/11. One cabinet member has said that the administration had made up its mind to go to war against Hussein long before 9/11. Rumsfeld called for war against Hussein only hours after the 9/11 attacks.

-The administration sent its own people into the intelligence services to hand pick the intelligence it wanted, even when those services insisted the intelligence they wanted was of poor quality. This information was then presented as gospel at cabinet meetings and to the American people.

-No WMDs have been found. The chief weapons inspector says they won't be because they don't exist, certainly not in the quantities or the quality alleged by the administration, because our intelligence was faulty.

-Several administration officials have backed off from their professed certainty that Hussein had WMDs and that we would find them. The president himself used very different language in his most recent State of the Union speech than he did one year ago.

-Either our intelligence was faulty or the use of it by the administration was faulty, or both.

-Claims that the war was necessary because Hussein was a threat to us and others because of his WMD program are clearly untrue.

-The administration refused to face up to the problems of post-war Iraq before the invasion because it knew paying attention to this issue would create doubt as to the wisdom of the invasion. Every problem that has come up from looting to elections was analyzed and addressed by intelligence agencies and analysts prior to the war, and ignored by the administration.

Looks like the conservatives can fvck foreign policy up just like the liberals. One wouldn't have believed it had one not experienced it.

Utah

01-26-2004, 07:26 PM

Of course, this topic has been discussed to death...brought back to life...and bludgeoned to death again several times over. However, I cannot resist

perjury or not, it was not an impeachable offense

Sure it is. I think a felony should be an automatic removal from office. You don't?

I think the sex alone was enough to remove him from office. Its not sex in itself, but rather that he was in a position of supreme power over this women. I bet if it became public that a Fortune 500 CEO was sleeping with an intern he would be removed and noone would accept the B.S. argument that it was a private matter. Many professions have morality clauses built into conditions of employment as they correctly realize private acts have consequences on the business. The president is a wholly public figure and his actions as a whole have an effect on the nation.

That being said, that isn't the big reasons. Heck, I don't think perjury is the biggest reason - although agian it was enough for removal. The two big reasons are:

1) He was engaged in a strategy to destroy Monica Lewinsky. He was willing to do whatever it took to destroy her to save his own skin. The White House was in full operation executing a strategy to make M.L. seem like a nut job. Sex is one thing. Engaging is acts to destroy another innocent persons life to protect your hide is something completely different.

2) He put the nation at risk. Whether it was a private act or not, he would have to have known that the public reaction would be incredible. It is prima facia evidence he knew this reaction by the great lengths he went to cover it up. This jepordized his ability to act politically and militarily, as he decisions would lack credibilily. Thus, his actions were incredibly reckless in terms of health and security of the nation.

I want my tax dollars spent on the investigation back

You should ask ole Slick then for the money, because it was his actions and lying that caused the spending. Also, the costs were so minimal in terms of national spending that it is laughable. Simple PR from the Clinton team.

while Bush if not lying, heavily misleading the American public about something that resulted in 500+ American deaths, garners a little contreversy but no major problems

Faulty argument. Maybe Bush deserves to be removed from office just as much as Clinton. You can attack the Republicans for being hypocritical. However, Clintons actions and the proper reaction cannot be connected to Bush and they need to be addressed seperately.

You can't just cite WMDs as a primary reason of invading Iraq and then recant and give other reasons as equally or more important after it appears that there were no WMDs

Good thing he did not do that and instead stated that the main reason was failure to live up to the resolutions that ended the hostility in the first place.

The evidence concerning WMDs is still very much an open question. Remember that Iraq and the WMD issue was very much alive during the Clinton administration. It is eerily similiar what Clinton said during Desert Fox as Bush said before Gulf 2. To condemn bush as a murderer is to condemn Clinton for the same thing. As I have recently said, it is so strange that the democrats are so silent on this. You dont think that maybe they are playing a political angle shot do you? Nahhhh.

andyfox

01-26-2004, 07:39 PM

"he was in a position of supreme power over this women"

Pun intended? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

When caught in such situation, the first instinct of a politician (of anyone?) is to lie. (When the U-2 was shot down over Russia, Eisenhower told the press conference it was impossible, we don't have any spy planes over Russia.)Clinton, of course, had this strategy refined to a fine art of the most exquisite proportions, having been lying about his private life for most of it. A small-time con artist catapulted onto the world stage for all to observe.

The Democrats had no guts. And no brains. None. They should have walked into the Oval Office and asked Clinton to resign. How could anyone look him in the face after what they found out about him? Gore would have been president and probably still would be.

I don't think Clinton's actions were impeachable, but they were certainly enough to have caused his party to ask him to resign. It would have saved us the ugly spectacle of the Republican/Ken Starr fiasco. The Republicans had guts, but no brains either.

I have addressed the WMD issue in another (long and ranting) post. But the United States didn't care one bit about the U.N. resolutions. We said we would go to war with or without the support of the U.N.

I don't understand why some are finding it so hard to believe that governments lie when they're going to war. The real world is rarely only black and white. The white is accentuated and the gray deaccentuated to make it appear black and white. The Republicans just aren't as good at it as the Democrats because they come across as less intellectual and more hard-assed. Can you imagine a Republican president named Jimmy or Bill?

andyfox

01-26-2004, 07:43 PM

The White House retreated Monday from its once-confident claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Democrats swiftly sought to turn the about-face into an election-year issue against President Bush [gee, really? af].

The administration's switch came after retired chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said he had concluded, after nine months of searching, that Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of forbidden weapons. Asked about Kay's remarks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to repeat oft-stated assertions that prohibited weapons eventually would be found.

McClellan said the inspectors should continue their work "so that they can draw as complete a picture as possible. And then we can learn - it will help us learn the truth."

-Would have been nice if we had had a complete a picture as possible and had we learned the truth, and had the truth been related to us, before we went to war. But again, not too many governments in history have told the truth about why they go to war.

daveymck

01-26-2004, 08:16 PM

You also missed the fact that Saddam also used the fact the US was the only country to ever deploy nuclear weapons and was expanding the nuclear program to put missles into space.

As well as having programs to design smaller nuclear devices to penetrate underground bunkers.

I'll also add not signing the treaty to reduce global pollution as well.

Better stop I'll get accused of being anti US, which I'm not I just dont agree with everything that is done in the US or the UK for that matter.

Chris Alger

01-26-2004, 08:21 PM

In his NPR (http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1615880.html) interview yesterday, David Kay was asked the following question about Con Coughlin's alleged quotation by him in the Telegraph and gave the following answer.

Q: "You told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper that you do believe that some weapons materials may have been moved to Syria. What can you tell us about that?"

Kay: "I think that's a compressed [laughter] view of what I said. What I said is there's ample evidence of movement to Syria, uh, before the war. I mean there's satellite photography, there are reports on the ground, of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved. And that's an important area for which continued work has to be done. Although I must say there's very little you can do in Iraq to determine what was moved, the real answers to that are in Syria. And the Syrian government has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve this issue."

In other words, prior to the bombing, people unsurprisingly fled. It is therefore conceivable that something Kay is looking for went with them, but he can't say if there's any evidence of this other than "movement" of people and vehicles. He offers nothing about weapons, weapons components, weapons program-related components, or any of the other increasingly distant threat words the White House now uses to justify the war.

Three things are interesting here:

1. Con Coughlin's reputation as an unscrupulous shill for the war is unabated. After reporting huge Iraqi demonstrations in support of the war that no other journalist ever sees, after reporting secret documents linking Iraq to al Qaeda that not even the U.S. government sees, and now a "compressed" (i.e., overly specific) "quote" from Kay. Small wonder that Coughlin doesn't report even the nature of the evidence he claims Kay disclosed. (Coughlin's boss Conrad Black, BTW, also publisher of the Israeli propaganda tabloid The Jerusalem Post, is being sued for looting $200 million from the Candian holding company while it's directors looked the other way. One of the directors is Iraq war architect Richard Perle).

2. Ariel Sharon (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01262004.html) claimed back in December 2002 that "We are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria." So why hasn't the leading recipient of U.S. aid refused to disclose to the CIA's chief weapons inspector even the slightest evidence for the alleged certainty? Why doesn't Bush castigate Israel by saying "we give it $5 billion of taxpayer money every year and Israel won't even give us a clue about what went to Syria, even though lack of WMD is undermining my credibility and Israel is 'certain' of its proof?" Because it's transparent nonsense.

3. Kay's last comment about Syria's refusal to cooperate is a telling indicator of how U.S. policy actually undermines efforts to curtail terror and the spread of WMD. I think it was Nicky that posted some excellent stuff about Syria's early cooperation with the U.S. in tracking down al Qaeda members. This budding relationship, however, was terminated by the White House in order to maintain a constant state of hostility toward Syria. Syria was also the sponser of a UN resolution to verifiably ban all WMD's from the Middle East. The U.S., of course, opposed this, meaning that it died on the vine, because it would also apply to Israeli nukes which threaten the entire region.

These bits of innuendo about Syria are nothing more than scraps of red meat the right occasionally throws to race warriors like you to support bloodbaths in more Arab countries, as you evidently hope for, "after the election."

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 09:39 PM

Thanks for the additional information.

I cannot, however, but take issue with the foloowing statement of yours:

"These bits of innuendo about Syria are nothing more than scraps of red meat the right occasionally throws to race warriors like you to support bloodbaths in more Arab countries, as you evidently hope for, "after the election.""

Syria promotes and supports terrorism, and the government is Baathist as was Saddam's. The terrorist training camps should be eliminated and if Assad won't do it, I'll bet we will.

You truly cannot be thinking straight if you think I am in any way a race warrior. I despise bigotry based on race, and I despise ideologies and political systems which deny their citizens equality before the law.

Apparently, according to Chris Alger, despising bigotry or totalitarianism is itself bigotry. Amazing.

According to Alger, despising a system such as Islamic law under which women are treated as chattel instead of as human beings, is bigotry--which makes me a race warrior, lol.

I despise intolerance. I am only intolerant of cruelty, stupidity, and intolerance--and systems which institutionalize such things.

MMMMMM

01-26-2004, 09:45 PM

With all that said--however much may be accurate--the bottom line is that we got rid of a bad tyrant and that the people of Iraq will be far better off. So let's rejoice, andy.

Chris Alger

01-26-2004, 11:09 PM

What "terrorist training camps?" Something you read on the net somewhere? Know any recent terror attacks from graduates of these "camps"?

The last time this issue surfaced was when Israel bombed an abandoned facility in Syria, resulting in no casualties. Even the U.S. said it had no evidence of any activity going on there. Do you really think that Israel couldn't bomb with impunity any such camps, that the IAF just sits around looking at recon photos of training terrorists? How naive can you be?

"I despise ideologies and political systems which deny their citizens equality before the law."

That's horseshit. Israel's control over the West Bank is totalitarian, and your regular response to that is that the residents should move elsewhere if they don't like it. You're a huge cheerleader for a President that wants to give lethal aid to countries that you purport to "despise."

As for despising bigotry, this isn't even slightly credible from someone who so constantly complains about group inferiority based on nearly immutable characteristics such as religion and culture.

Taxman

01-26-2004, 11:35 PM

I think Andy made some good points, though they were maybe a little extreme. If the sex alone was enough to remove him from office it's amazing that the roads aren't littered with dozens of impeached presidents, setators and congressmen. Did you know that Newt Gingrich was involved in an affair during the whole impeachment proceedings? Did you know that Clinton actually admited previously to infidelity during his first run att the presidency(yes I think he should have done so again)? I think that completely ignoring the will of the UN is far more damaging to foreign policy than having sex with another woman. In fact if you find various foreign opinion sources, you'll see that the world mostly considered the whole proceedings absurd and amusing. His decisions did not suffer a huge credibility hit IMO. Especially when compared with Bush (which I certainly can do). The specific actions were different, but the element of a missing truth is the same. I never said Bush should be impeached (though perhaps something will be revealed indicating that he should be), but it is ironic (and an indication of the spinelessness of the democrats) that he gets away with potentially much more damaging things with relatively little attention. The argument is not faulty because the point was not to compare the two actions, it was to pick a common theme and examine how one president was punnished much more than the other one. As for the "failure to live up to the resolutions," it was mostly a comment on the supposed "fact" that Iraq had WMDs, so it is the same.

Did I ever condemn Bush as a murderer? No, that's right I didn't. After all I'm sure he's never actually shot a man or been anywhere close to a situation in which he might have to. You're last paragraph is fragmented and unclear, but from what I can understand you're claiming that because the Clinton suspected the presence of WMDs and issued air strikes against Iraq, he is responsible for as many deaths as Bush and perhaps indirectly responsible for "Operation Iraqi Freedom". I think you can probably figure out yourself why this is the true faulty argument here. Obviously the Clinton administration did not think a full blown invasion was necessary, which of course means that 500 American lives were not lost as well as far more Iraqi lives than in dessert fox. Besides given the continuing lack of WMD evidence, it looks like Clinton already got the job done.

Taxman

01-26-2004, 11:44 PM

I don't think anyone here disagrees that it's a good thing that Hussein is gone, but with dozen of brutal dictators out there, the reasons behind his particular removal are worth serious discussion, especially because it calls into quesiton the competency of our current leader.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 12:06 AM

"What "terrorist training camps?" Something you read on the net somewhere?"

Yes.

Know any recent terror attacks from graduates of these "camps"?

No.

"The last time this issue surfaced was when Israel bombed an abandoned facility in Syria, resulting in no casualties. Even the U.S. said it had no evidence of any activity going on there. Do you really think that Israel couldn't bomb with impunity any such camps, that the IAF just sits around looking at recon photos of training terrorists? How naive can you be?"

So it was obviously a warning shot across the bow for Syria.

M wrote: "I despise ideologies and political systems which deny their citizens equality before the law."

to which Chris Alger responded:

"That's horseshit. Israel's control over the West Bank is totalitarian, and your regular response to that is that the residents should move elsewhere if they don't like it. You're a huge cheerleader for a President that wants to give lethal aid to countries that you purport to "despise.""

Israel is a special case, too complex to get into for this point. Obviously I believe Israel is forced to take strong measures to try to ensure her own security in the face of frequent suicide bombing attacks aimed at her civilians.

"As for despising bigotry, this isn't even slightly credible from someone who so constantly complains about group inferiority based on nearly immutable characteristics such as religion and culture."

Therein lies the essence of our differences on this subject, Chris: you believe such characteristics are nearly immutable, or are integral parts of persons, but I believe any thinking, truly reflective person should be able to at least partially discard them and think on his/her own.

I condemn grossly intolerant ideologies, period--and condemnation of intolerance is not itself intolerance. Nor is it bigotry. Maybe I just have more faith than you do that the human spirit has the power to transcend traditional ways of thinking. So I freely condemn harmful and bigoted ideologies. Calling me a bigot for that is wrong. Call the bigots who really are, bigots--and that includes all who adhere to the highly bigoted aspects of Islamic ideology. They weren't born believing that crap--so it isn't in them genetically. They were taught it--and anyone who is truly human has the power to transcend, at least for a few moments now and then--anything they have been taught or accustomed to. All one has to do is listen to the little quiet voice of conscience to know what is good or bad, right or wrong. So it is time for the world, which they are now confronting, to tell them that their bigoted ways of thinking about women and other religions and the West are backwards. Maybe it will wake some of them up. Better that than thinking, as you seem to, that such thinking is the near equivalent of some racially inherent quality.

andyfox

01-27-2004, 01:03 AM

That a bad guy is gone is for certain. That the people of Iraq will be better off is fervently hoped for. That the people who brought us this war are extraordinarily dangerous seems clear; another fervent hope is that they don't do calamitous damage.

andyfox

01-27-2004, 01:09 AM

"Did you know that Clinton actually admited previously to infidelity during his first run att the presidency"

On 60 Minutes anniversary show last week, they showed portions of the Clintons' 1996 interview. Clinton said he had brought pain to his marriage, but when asked point blank if he had had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, he sid no, its not true.

Liar, liar, pants (obviously) on fire.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 01:41 AM

"That the people who brought us this war are extraordinarily dangerous seems clear;..."

Especially to tyrants and terrorists. Three cheers.

Utah

01-27-2004, 01:42 AM

Hi Andy,

As always a very good post.

I think this is one of the most astute political observations I have seen on this forum:

Can you imagine a Republican president named Jimmy or Bill

I always thought a felony prevented you from political office. We know he committed one, whether or not it was provable in a legal sense.

I think there is a big difference in lying to protect your country and lying to save you butt (e.g, from an illicit sexual affair). I think that is why the Aircraft Carrier lie bothered me so much. I can see lying about Iraq as a neccessity, but the Aircraft Carrier lie was far more equatable to the Clinton lie.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 01:51 AM

I'll just once reiterate my comments from long ago about the Clinton-Lewinsky affair:

Nobody's business except Bill's, Monica's, and Hillary's. IMO nobody should even have asked about it. There should have been no questioning by any panel, Congress, or whomever. It was just none of their damn business. And instead of lying I think that's just exactly what think Clinton should have told everybody. First question to last question on the subject: "None of your damn business, Dan. Sam?"...rinse and repeat as necessary.

Utah

01-27-2004, 02:03 AM

Did I ever condemn Bush as a murderer? No, that's right I didn't.

You need to relax just a wee bit more. Did I say you condemned Bush as a murderer? No, that's right I didn't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif He is commonly called a murderer on this forum and that it was a was answering in the post.

You're last paragraph is fragmented and unclear

It draws on obvious knowledge as to what Desert Fox was as well as to what Clinton used as his arguments for launching it. Clinton bombed Iraq and based the bombing of the facts that Iraq had WMDs and they were a threat to the world. Like Bush he acted unilaterally. If the left is currently correct that there are no WMDs then Clintons bombing was just as bad as Bush's, although not as large in scale. While Americans didnt die, he sure blew the crap out of a bunch of Iraqis.

I think that completely ignoring the will of the UN is far more damaging to foreign policy than having sex with another woman

Some, like me, would argue that ignoring the U.N. greatly stengthens U.S. forgein policy. What has the U.N. ever done? What wars has it prevented? What government has it ever forced to do anything? I think liberals like to think of the U.N. as some sort of Legion of Justice whose goal is to protect the world. Unfortunately, the U.N. is made up of terrorist countries and countries that support or suppliy terrorist nations such as Iran and Iraq (e.g., Russia and France). Its funny hearing that the left wants to put our national security into such a corrupt and inept organization. The left seems to think that the U.N. was against invading Iraq because it was the "wrong" thing to do. However, they didnt want to act because too many countries in the U.N. had big financial ties to Iraq. And of course, also because they are simply incapable of acting on anything.

Utah

01-27-2004, 02:12 AM

So, what he does on his own time is private (for a second we will suspend the fact that he was being "serviced" while conducting offical business)?

Where do you draw the line? Would it bother you if the president was always getting liquored up on his free time? What about doing drugs? how about visiting brothels? Blowing huge sums of cash in Vegas? This list could go on and on.

The obvious answer is that his character and his actions, whether in public or private, do matter. You cannot just seperate the private and public.

daveymck

01-27-2004, 05:24 AM

Tony Blair could potentially go out of office this week becasue the exact same thing. There is a report on a scientist who was linked to leaking to the press that the dossier on Iraq was a load of old rubbish, the government leaked his name discredited everything he had said and in the end he killed himself so we have had an inquiry.

The inquiry although not in its brief is expected to comment on whether intelligence was sexed up to mislead the british public on the reasons of war. If Blair does not go then our defense secretary is definatley out as pressure has been mounting on him for months on this and issues of supplies to the troops.

If there is a war against Syria I really dont think the UK will come along with the US as its coming up to election time and without real and substantial proof of wmd's and real terror camps that are a threat to us it would be political suicide for the government to go to war.

Our media has also turned on this issue for example there is a major documentary on Saturday on one of our main channels about how the UK and US got it wrong on Iraq and how frontline soldiers are pretty pissed that they thought they were defending the west from WMDs when in fact they were doing no such thing.

Kurn, son of Mogh

01-27-2004, 09:49 AM

Kay has officially stated that he believes it unlikely that there were any WMDs.

This is ludicrous? We *know* Iraq had WMDs. There is visual evidence they used them on the Kurds. Bill Clinton has stated for the record that he believes the Iraqis had WMD's when he left office.

The question is where did they go? There's still no evidence that the program is not still underground, or has notr been moved elsewhere. Any assertion that Iraq *never* had WMDs is just flat out wrong.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 10:27 AM

"So, what he does on his own time is private (for a second we will suspend the fact that he was being "serviced" while conducting offical business)?"

I think the President has no set office hours and can take a break in the White House at his discretion and as duties permit.

"Where do you draw the line? Would it bother you if the president was always getting liquored up on his free time? What about doing drugs? how about visiting brothels? Blowing huge sums of cash in Vegas? This list could go on and on."

Getting drunk and doing drugs could affect his ability to respond during times of national crisis, and could have a cumulative effect of decreasing his competence as well. So yes, I think that would be wrong, but it's a different issue. I don't think getting serviced would affect his ability to respond in times of national crisis. Heck it might even improve it.

As for other things like blowing money in Vegas I think he wouldn't have to be asked any questions, it would be all over the news anyway. Visiting brothels would be his business. And if he was asked about either I think he should be able to say he took a short vacation for some much-needed R&R and leave it at that.

"The obvious answer is that his character and his actions, whether in public or private, do matter. You cannot just seperate the private and public."

To some degree, I guess. However I think the President's bedroom conduct truly is a matter only for himself, his partner(s), and his wife.

By the way, I am also against all corporate or university codes barring sex between various persons. While some people may try to abuse their positions of power or influence, it's up to the person hit upon to stand their ground. They're both adults. If unwelcome sexual advances persist after it has been made clear that there is no interest, and after having clearly been asked to stop, then it may become a matter of sexual harassment which may be pursued if necessary through appropriate chanels.

I am sure my views are in the minority on both issues. I just feel that the public or the workplace or the campus has no right to dictate the private love lives of other citizens. If two people start falling in love on the job or campus it would be absurd and wrong to say they can't fall in love or pursue their mutual interest while in that setting.

I tend to take a very essential view of almost everything, with a very strong emphasis on the rights of the individual.

adios

01-27-2004, 10:46 AM

Good for you M. I think a grand jury probe asking about Clinton's sexual relationship with Lewinsky was very wrong. Why should he have to answer questions about explicit details of his sexual encounter?

Utah

01-27-2004, 11:33 AM

I think the President has no set office hours and can take a break in the White House at his discretion and as duties permit

If my memory serves me correctly, Billy was being serviced while talking on the phone to a member of the senate concerning offical business.

Cyrus

01-27-2004, 12:54 PM

"Ashcroft clears things up". Brilliant!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Utah

01-27-2004, 01:06 PM

Your logic was bugging me and I just figured out why.

Lets take what you are saying as 100% accurate. Nobody had any buiness asking him about his private conduct. Zero. None. Nada. Lets take for a fact that the Republicans behavior was disgusting in the whole affair.

Okay, now that we have stipulated to that, let me ask you a question: Does that excuse the following conduct:

1) Lying to the American People
2) Committing Perjury
3) Orchestrating a campaign to destroy a woman's life

If so, does would it then allow the following as well:

1) Threatening Lewinsky with Bodily Harm
2) Murdering Lewinsky
3) Launching a war to change the topic

It seems to me that if someone is caught in a situation that they shouldn't be caught in that doesn't give them free reign in conduct.

andyfox

01-27-2004, 01:20 PM

So far just to one tyrant. And not too many terrorists.

One cheer. With scattered boos.

andyfox

01-27-2004, 01:24 PM

Lyndon Johnson used to have senators come in to talk to him while he was on the toilet. Ycch.

I'm not sure or convinced on the legality of what Clinton did, but it sure was disgusting; not necessarily the sex part, although that was nothing to be proud of, but the cover-up and the atteempt to ruin Ms. Lewinsky's life. That's why I said the Democrats should have marched into his office and demanded resignation for the disgraceful (and possibly illegal) behavior.

andyfox

01-27-2004, 01:27 PM

Kay didn't say that they never had them, he said he believes they don't have them now. Some small amounts/quantities may have been hidden in Syria, but the sanctions together with the situation in Iraq (scientists telling Hussein, yes they were proceeding, when in fact they were not) precluded the development of WMDs.

What Bill Clinton believes is irrelevant.

Cyrus

01-27-2004, 02:01 PM

"The president is a wholly public figure and his actions as a whole have an effect on the nation."

If anything that a Prez does in private is actually a public affair, do you think that (this is a serious question) a President of the United States should engage, for example, in an act of sodomy, under any circumstances?

Would this be giving out wrong signals and have any kind of bad effects on the great American nation if it becomes a public matter? What is your opinion?

Once more, I am serious - and curious about this.

Kurn, son of Mogh

01-27-2004, 02:09 PM

What Bill Clinton believes is irrelevant.

Normally, I'd agree with this /images/graemlins/wink.gif

But my point was that there are many (not pointing a finger at you) who claim Bush fabricated the existance of WMDs to justify the war. My point was just that the existance of those weapons was accepted by the prior administration as well.

In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that whether there are any there now or were any there in March is irrelevant. As long as Hussein was in power, the potential for their development was always there. Had Powell and Bush Sr. listened to Schwartzkopf in '91, we wouldn't be in Iraq now.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 02:29 PM

Quite right, it doesn't excuse the lying or perjury, etc.--which is precisely why I said that his stance from the beginning should have been that it's none of anybody's business. That way he wouldn't have told any lies because he wouldn't have answered the damn question in the first place.

I realize my opinion is probably in the tiny minority, but that's just how stroghly I feel about people minding their own business and not being busybodies interfering with or telling others what they should be doing in their private lives.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 02:33 PM

I didn't follow the aftermath that closely. If Clinton tried to ruin her life that is really bad IMO.

adios

01-27-2004, 02:36 PM

"Had Powell and Bush Sr. listened to Schwartzkopf in '91, we wouldn't be in Iraq now."

Exactly. Instead we complied with the UN.

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 02:39 PM

"If my memory serves me correctly, Billy was being serviced while talking on the phone to a member of the senate concerning offical business."

Lol.

Multi-tasking is an acquired skill, and some are probably naturally better at it than others.

Haven't you ever, maybe in your younger days, had a pretty young lady friend who suddenly got the impulse to put her head in your lap and...while you were driving? Did you stop her? Well if that can be handled at highway speeds then I'll bet Clinton could handle talking most types of business on the phone with some Senator while "enjoying the scenery", so to speak. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Utah

01-27-2004, 04:11 PM

If anything that a Prez does in private is actually a public affair, do you think that (this is a serious question) a President of the United States should engage, for example, in an act of sodomy, under any circumstances?

Depends if she's cute (or "he" for the culturally sensitive)

Although I have no problem with sodomy, he should not do it simply because of the potential adverse effects on the nation (simply put - if found out it would raise a s#$%t storm)- whether those effects are borne out of ignorance or other factors is besides the point. Also, please don't construe my "morality clause" to mean anything to do with morality (which I dont believe in) - its just what they are called.

Lets take away the loaded issues relating to sex. Lets say the president, in his free time, was penning a book called "Why I hate blacks". The book was private and it was somehow stolen from his bedroom. Do you think that these same people who said the sex was a private act would say the same thing about the book, since it was legal, private, and done on his own time? Further, lets say there was no evidence in his public life of this bigotry.

The public/private line is difficult to draw and to be honest, I am not sure of the exact answer. However, I think the overriding principle is that it rests in the public domain if it has the potential to effect the nation. I think his health exams are a good example. Ones health is about a private an issue as you can come by. However, the results of the president's exam are public at a high level (e.g., "The president is in good health". The president needs surgery").

Kurn, son of Mogh

01-27-2004, 04:56 PM

Perjury is defined as lying under oath about a topic germane to the investigation. The Lewinsky line of questioning was ultimately deemed to not be germane. Therefore, Clinton did not commit perjury.

Just because they put you on the stand and swear you in does not mean they can ask any damn thing they want.

Also, despite my dislike for Clinton, IMO the Supreme Court erred in its decision to allow a sitting President to be tried on a civil matter that occurred before his election.

Kurn, son of Mogh

01-27-2004, 05:02 PM

The obvious answer is that his character and his actions, whether in public or private, do matter.

It does matter, and every 4 years we have the opportunity to act on how those character issues impact the ability to govern.

In the Clinton instance, the constitutional process was followed. He was legitimately impeached by the House, and legitimately acquitted by the Senate. The liberals don't like the first part, the conservatives don't like the last part. Tough. The process was followed, the result is the result. Get over it.

Kurn, son of Mogh

01-27-2004, 05:11 PM

If two people start falling in love on the job or campus it would be absurd and wrong to say they can't fall in love or pursue their mutual interest while in that setting.

Whoah. An employer certainly *does* have the right to tell you to not pursue that interest on his time. While you're at work, it's on your employer's time, not your private time.

Hey I knew a restaurant manager who got fired for doing exactly what Bill & Monica did in his office. Doing that at work is conduct unacceptable in a restaurant manager. Are you honestly suggesting that the President of the United States not be held to at least the same standard of workplace behavior as a restaurant manager?

I'll be clear. I think the Paula Jones suit never should have happened during his presidency, I think the Lewinsky line of questioning was flat out wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that his behavior was actionable by his employer (aka We The People).

MMMMMM

01-27-2004, 05:30 PM

M: "If two people start falling in love on the job or campus it would be absurd and wrong to say they can't fall in love or pursue their mutual interest while in that setting."

Kurn: "Whoah. An employer certainly *does* have the right to tell you to not pursue that interest on his time. While you're at work, it's on your employer's time, not your private time."

Sorry, but I think you may have misinterpreted my statement.

I wrote "while in that setting", not "while on the employer's time[/i]".

In other words they should have every right to hold conversations (and maybe fall in love) while on coffee break or during lunch hour, for instance. If they date outside of office hours it should not be the employer's concern, more especially the employer should not be making rules forbidding this. That's my dyed-in-the-wool-individual-rights-non-interference perspective /images/graemlins/grin.gif