WMDs the final word?

[Taxman]

Kay has officially stated that he believes it unlikely that there were any WMDs. The repsonse of the Bush administration sounds pretty weak considering the extended discussion we've had here. Yes it's good that Saddam is gone but that doesn't justify declaring war unless the administration plans on doing so against all of the opressive regimes of the world. A link to CNNs article is below.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

[Taxman]

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.

[Utah]

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]

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

Pun intended? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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?

[Utah]

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.

[Taxman]

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.

[andyfox]

"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]

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.

[Taxman]

Yes that is a lie because I'm pretty sure he has outright admited (sorry I can't remember a specific source) infidelity in the past. Clinton was one of the most intelligent presidents we've had but sometimes he could be a real idiot.

[Utah]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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.