Bush and the WMD claim

[Ivan Seeking]

A commentary that I noticed. Just FYI.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

[Zero]

Good article. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you are talking about national security.

[russ_watters]

It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But thats allowed by the Constitution.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But thats allowed by the Constitution.

LOL, again with the rationalizations, the justifications for destroying a president based on lies and innuendo and petty issues.

[kyle_soule]

Let's look at the WMD this way for a second.

Let's say a child of 17 had these in his bookbag at school:

receiver, magazine, magazine extension, swivel, swivel retaining ring, receiver shock absorber, carrier latch button, carrier auxiliary latch, carrier latch, carrier latch spring, latch pin, latch pin retaining spring, magazine shell latch, magazine shell, latch spring, cut-off button, cut-off button spring, cut-off button pin, locking block guide, magazine follower, magazine spring, trigger plate assembly, trigger plate pin, cocking slide, breech block slide, gas piston, operating handle, operating handle retaining spring, breech block, locking block, firing pin, firing pin spring, firing pin stop, extractor, extractor plunger, extractor spring, extractor pin, action spring, handguard, handguard front screw, handguard rear screw, handguard screw elastic washer, slide action sleeve, cam , auto/manual fire selector, fire selector frame, fire selector frame pin, fire selector pin, fire selector spring, run piston, barrel assembly, barrel extension, ejector, thread protection bush, protection bush washer, magazine extension retaining spring, selection sleeve valve, sleeve valve friction spring, sleeve valve acting ring, right grip, left grip, grip assembling screw, grip counter screw, pistol grip retaining screw, retaining screw washer, stock fastening drum, stock fastening drum pin, stock fastening drum follower, stock fastening drum follower spring, stock stop pin, stock stop pin spring, stock frame, butt plate, butt plate pivoting pin, butt plate pivoting pin and stock hook circlip, butt plate stop pin, butt plate stop pin spring, butt plate stop pin bush, butt plate stop pin retainer, butt plate shock absorber, stock hook (folding stock version only), stock hook spring, sling, trigger plate, carrier, breech bolt latch, breech bolt latch main pin, breech bolt latch internal pin, breech bolt latch main spring, breech bolt latch auxiliary spring, breech bolt latch spring follower, hand safety, hand safety spring retaining pin, trigger, trigger pin, spacer, trigger lever, trigger lever pin, hammer, hammer pin, hammer spring, hammer spring follower, sear, sear pin, sear spring, auto safety lever, rear trunnion, front trunnion, auto safety spring, auto safety spring guide, trigger guard pin bushing, trigger guard pin detent spring, grip plug, stock fastener, stock fastener washer, and a rear sight.

Now this child also has a guide to assemble a SPAS12. Let's also say a teacher finds this bookbag laying by his desk open, with all the parts just laying in there.

Would you not hope [and expect] the teacher would confiscate this bookbag and turn it in to the police? Of course you would, everybody knows these parts make up a SPAS12 shotgun! These are all harmless disassembled, but given enough time the kid will get it all put together. If you were making a case against the child would you not refer to these parts as a SPAS12?

Iraq has the chemicals we gave them, and they aren't cooperating with weapon inspectors, if they had no intentions of using these weapons, and we gave the chemicals to them, why not just say "Hey, the US gave us these to fight Iran, you can have them back now." and show the inspectors where they are? This is enough reason to justify the use of the words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and justify force in getting these chemicals taken back and/or destroyed.

[schwarzchildradius]

That's an excellent article, but I don't think that the president is impeachable, simply because the House has too many Republicans. One thing is for sure, if he were a democrat, he'd have been impeached long ago.

[Zero]

Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.

Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though. By a THIRD?!?! Try finding three random springs and an unrifled tube. There has been no solid evidence of a WMD program, and certainly not one which justifies a war. Don't worry though...Bush will lie again, and say that he is credible(ha) because the world is safer(HA!)...instead of gaining credibility by the simpler traditional method of TELLING THE TRUTH!!!

[Ivan Seeking]

By Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A30


CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

That evidence was dismissed as a forgery early this month by United Nations officials investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Bush administration does not dispute this conclusion.

Asked how the administration came to back up one of its principal allegations against Iraq with information its own intelligence service considered faulty, officials said all such assertions were carefully tailored to stay within the bounds of certainty. As for the State of the Union address, a White House spokesman said, "all presidential speeches are fully vetted by the White House staff and relevant U.S. government agencies for factual correctness."....

See the story: CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm

[RageSk8]

Iraq probably does have WMDs somewhere. Even the French know this (and when the French know something....). The administration claimed much more than Iraw merely having WMDs, they claimed Iraq active programs developing and producing WMDs and the ability to deploy those weapons. The discovery of WDMs would do nothing (logically, reality is a different subject) for the Bush administration. Hell, even finding solid evidence of weapon programs would do nothing. This issue is whether the Bush administration mislead the American and world communities on what evidence they did have, on what justification they had in making their claims. And when the CIA, the Bush administrations core resource for intelligence information, expressed doubts both in meetings and in official reports about the administrations claims, clearly there is a big problem here.

[kyle_soule]

What I have seen, and I doubt I have been terribly mislead, is that the majority of Iraqi people wanted Saddam removed. If a country's people asked another country to remove their leader because they were being oppressed, tortured and killed for no reason, etc you should hope that the country being called on would help them out. You would never expect such a call because, of course, the person or persons doing the calling would be killed.

Through what I have seen from videos, and such, I have seen the people wanted to be 'liberated', there reactions after 'liberation' are the only way we could tell they were/would have been calling out for some country to help them.

Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.

The ends justify the means?
From below:

That's what I said.

If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.

The ends justify the means?

[Sting]

Either way, if no WMD's are found, someone is going to look bad. The Bush administration could blame the intelligence for giving false information and the intelligence could blame the Bush administration for misinterpreting data.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The ends justify the means? In this case, unequivocably yes.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
That's what I said.

If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?

No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.


"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
---- President Eisenhower - January 1961

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.

So we ignore what we find because....why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
So we ignore what we find because....why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?

No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.

By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In this case, unequivocably yes.

And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.

[schwarzchildradius]

That's all very rosy but guess what the war's not over. Hey, that's why there's no democracy - because the war never really ended. Whooda thunkit.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.

I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular [:)]] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.

Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

Edit: There is a good reason that "High Crimes" was cited in the original article.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular [:)]] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.

Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

[Ganshauk]

Originally posted by Zero
Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

What is right? What is immoral? Who is to judge?

America, my friend, loses everything when we start thinking that what we are doing is bad. All nations use immoral means. They always have. Morality means nothing in the world stage. Publicity is all.

If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period. It is up to you to look around you. Do you want your friends and family to prosper or decline?

Can you kill a ten year old who threatens your family with a bomb? Can you subjugate a population who is bent on your destruction? If you are a relative of the 9/11 bombing I bet you can.

Truth is subjective. The stench of dead loved ones is objective.

I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of thier existance. No amount of spin can circumvent the single fact that these bastards want to wipe us ALL out. Every since ~600 A.D. these guys have been positioned to destroy the world.

America, like Europe, is soft - like a marshmallow. We let this crap go on. They get stronger - we get softer. All in the name of PC.

With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.

[schwarzchildradius]

That's some impressive war-mongering, G. I particularly like the part about
If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period.
Sounds pretty cool to me, after all, anarchy results in lots of fun.
I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of thier existance
The five tenets? Let's see, what are they...
The major duties, nevertheless, in the life of a Moslem are to fulfill these Five Pillars. They are: 1. The Statement of Faith (Shahadah) 2. The Establishment of Prayers (Salah) 3. The Giving of Alms (Zakah) 4. Fasting (Sawm), and 5. Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj).
Where does it say "fly planes into buildings" ?! Mainstream Islam has been around a long time. Believe it or not, it encourages justice, making it a natural enemy of corruption. It opposes the Law of the Jungle that G so eloquently mouthed.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

What is right? What is immoral? Who is to judge?

America, my friend, loses everything when we start thinking that what we are doing is bad. All nations use immoral means. They always have. Morality means nothing in the world stage. Publicity is all.

If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period. It is up to you to look around you. Do you want your friends and family to prosper or decline?

Can you kill a ten year old who threatens your family with a bomb? Can you subjugate a population who is bent on your destruction? If you are a relative of the 9/11 bombing I bet you can.

Truth is subjective. The stench of dead loved ones is objective.

I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of thier existance. No amount of spin can circumvent the single fact that these bastards want to wipe us ALL out. Every since ~600 A.D. these guys have been positioned to destroy the world.

America, like Europe, is soft - like a marshmallow. We let this crap go on. They get stronger - we get softer. All in the name of PC.

With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.

Well, your point is well taken. There are even times when a true patriot must make a personal sacrifice, like political suicide, in order to do the right thing. However, you assume that you have been told the truth. Well, if you remember your history, you will remember that we were told by the senior Bush administration that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of there incubators, threw the babies on the floor, and took the incubators back to Iraq. We were even told that a specific Iraqi convoy fleeing Kuwait was slaughtered and they were the ones who killed all of the babies. Later we found that the critical testimony to this effect came from a nurse who was not really a nurse, but a member of the Kuwaiti Royal family. What's more, the incident never even took place.

Now it appears that we may have been lied to again...this time as the justification for the entire war. The question is not whether or not Saddam is/was a bad guy, the question is, does this country operate according to a constitution or not? By your reasoning, we may as well make Bush King. Have you considered the implications if this war was not justified? The reason so many people objected to this war, including me, was that a distinct lack of evidence was found to support the Bush administration’s claims. Now we can’t find the “tons” of stuff Saddam had stockpiled. I assumed that we likely knew exactly where the weapons were, but for reasons of national security we could not be told. This is the only reason that I wasn't writing letter of protest and such. The fact is, the evidence did not exist, and now it seems that neither did the weapons. If Bush lied, in my mind this could him a war criminal - an unprovoked and unjustified attack on another country? I am still reserving final judgment, but I’m starting to look for a hangin judge. [s(]

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.

By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.

No, no, no, I'm not saying do away with search warrants, that was only an example. I'm just saying if someone believes something so much that they are willing to stick their own neck out, then let them. If they are wrong and find nothing, punish them, but if they are wrong about their original intentions, but find something equally (or more so in Iraq's case) as bad going on, then the end justifies the means.

Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

Enemies change though[:)] Democracy also changes. So then can values, if what we believed to be values of our enemies x year ago, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe them to be enemies values anymore, and it is also possible that we think these values are for the best. Basically, America has changed (if these are indeed values of old enemies) and if you don't agree with the changing of America then wouldn't it also be true that you don't agree with the democracy and the Constitution? Which you accuse me of wanting to throw out?

Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

Is it not illegal and immoral to treat the citizens of your country the way Iraq did? Illegal in the sense that murder without cause is wrong no matter what your laws of the country are.

The majority supported the war...doesn't sound like a dictatorship to me. Bad America, doing the right thing...[6)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. Are you saying that there is *NOT* ever a time when it is unequivocably clear that action is justified? It sounds to me like you are old enough to remember a pretty big one.

As I stated in another thread (and multiple times during and before the war), there were FOUR reasons for this war, all of which individually made the war justified.

[Zero]

When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong. There are times when action is justified. On the other hand, sacrificing your ethics to eliminate a wrong, is to become a wrongness on your own.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong. In this case, the right thing was done for the right reasons and with the right methods. Now I understand you dispute the reasons, though as I have pointed out countless times, there were FOUR right reasons and you seem to only have a beef with one of them.

I don't see how you can fault the methods here - we fought a war in the middle of all the major cities in Iraq and by the WORST estimates killed only 3300 civilians and 150 of our troops. Thats as close to flawless as war gets. There are times when action is justified. WHEN!?!? When is action justified? How bad exactly does someone or some situation have to be before we say enough is enough?

And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.

[Zero]

I don't for a minute dispute the bad news involved in Saddam Hussein. I do think that if WMD were areason, then some effort should have been made to protect sites that contained nuclear materials. In fact, if you look at the sites protected by teh military, you will mostly see oil fields. Nothing was done ahead of time to pursue anything besides oil.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.

The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.

One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.

Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.

Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

You keep missing the point. The "clear and present danger" is the only reason he could legally do what he did. If no danger was clear and present, then the war was illegal. If Bush committed a high crime under constitutional law, then he should go to jail.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

You may want to recheck your facts on that...Iraq protested the U.S. inspection teams for suspected spying(later confirmed). They asked for UN intervention, and the US responded by pulling out the inspectors.

[Ivan Seeking]

"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
John Dean: a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.

CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.
-- The Washington Post

[schwarzchildradius]

Thing is though, even if he's guilty enough to impeach, which he may well be, the House has to initiate the proceedure. There are just too many Bush insiders in the House for it to happen. And who's going to take his place, Cheney or Rummy? That's worse. I don't know why, but it is.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Thing is though, even if he's guilty enough to impeach, which he may well be, the House has to initiate the proceedure. There are just too many Bush insiders in the House for it to happen. And who's going to take his place, Cheney or Rummy? That's worse. I don't know why, but it is.

This is what I thought for a time. But if a crime was committed, criminal charges can be filed after he leaves office. Also, considering that Dean claims "this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison" I remind you of the phraseto flee like rats from a sinking ship We shall see.

[russ_watters]

First things first: Zero, I know I'm going to have to reiterate, this discussion is hypothetical - I don't think Bush lied about anything.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue. Supposing Congress would impeach Bush, what crime exactly would they impeach him for (remember, it was I who said a president can be impeached for damn near anything)? Constitutionally, the President can wake up one morning in a bad mood and bomb France if he wants to. His powers over the military are broad and vague in the Constution. Its a tough issue.

You keep missing the point. The "clear and present danger" is the only reason he could legally do what he did. If no danger was clear and present, then the war was illegal. Ivan, I provided a handful of examples where "clear and present danger" wasn't required. It wasn't required here either whether he invoked it or not. Bush didn't have to get approval to go to war in Iraq. He choose justify it for political reasons. So if he had lied, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Ivan, I'm just not seeing what you are seeing here. I'm going to have to invoke the Clinton example (sorry). Clinton was impeached because he lied UNDER OATH. Though he lied in speaches dozens of times about the same things, legally (and politically of course) it only mattered when he lied under oath.

HOWEVER, I must stress again that Congress COULD impeach and remove Bush for a bad haircut if they wanted to because impeachment is a political process, not a leagal one. So the question really is: do they want to? And can they survive the political implications?Iraq protested the U.S. inspection teams for suspected spying(later confirmed). They asked for UN intervention, and the US responded by pulling out the inspectors. Zero, Are you suggesting that Saddam was showing the inspectors everything they wanted to see?

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison"

Considering John Dean was PART of the Water-Gate scandal, I'm sure he was more than happy to compare it to Bush's (unlikely but) possible (to some) scandal, makes him look better. It would be his, and others, first chance to get their names off the "dirt" list.

Basically, I don't see any credibility in this quote.

[Dissident Dan]

Remember that only Congress has the legal right to declare war. However, the President can send forces into combat for up to 60 days by his own discretion under certain circumstances. The War Powers Act states:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


I don't remember War being declared by Congress.
Was there any specific statutory authorization? I don't know. I think that the answer probably is "No."
Was there a national emergency created by attack upon the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces? No, Iraq did not attack us.

And I think if bush, cheney, powell, etc. had lied to us to sell the war (which I think they undoubtedly did), would that be some kind of felony or "breach of the peace"?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan

And I think if bush, cheney, powell, etc. had lied to us to sell the war (which I think they undoubtedly did), would that be some kind of felony or "breach of the peace"?

It dopesn't matter, according to Russ, because if Congress doesn't sue for impeachment, nothing Bush does can be considered wrong, illegal, or unAmerican.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The War Powers Act states:... There is a good reason Congress has never invoked the War Powers Act - its unconstitutional and they know it. They'd rather have it in the books for show than try to use it and lose it altogether. Was there any specific statutory authorization? I don't know. I think that the answer probably is "No." Yes, Congress specifically authorized force against Iraq (in fact, they gave him a specific amount of money, which he came in UNDER). I believe in this case, Bush asked for it, but thats neither here nor there - its not required. In 1990, Bush I did NOT ask for it, but they gave it to him anyway to avoid a War Powers Act challenge.
Was there a national emergency created by attack upon the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces? No, Iraq did not attack us. How many times do I have to say thats not required? Do you want MORE examples?And I think if bush, cheney, powell, etc. had lied to us to sell the war (which I think they undoubtedly did), would that be some kind of felony or "breach of the peace"? Like I said before, I don't think they did, but *IF* they had (or if enough people think they did) it STILL wouldn't be a criminal offense. They simply do not need our permission so anything they do to GET our permission is irrelevant. Originally posted by ZeroIt dopesn't matter, according to Russ, because if Congress doesn't sue for impeachment, nothing Bush does can be considered wrong, illegal, or unAmerican. Zero, when you know its not true, that makes it a *LIE*. We covered this in my thread a couple of months ago about the difference between errors and lies. Stop posting lies about me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, when you know its not true, that makes it a *LIE*. We covered this in my thread a couple of months ago about the difference between errors and lies. Stop posting lies about me.
Show me a lie about you, and I'll apologize. Show me two lies about you, and when I apologize, I'll mean it![<:)]

You have stated several times, with a fair amount of clarity and apparent knowledge, that Bush's actions only become officially illegal when impeachment begins. Until then, whatever he says goes...

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Show me a lie about you, and I'll apologize. Show me two lies about you, and when I apologize, I'll mean it![<:)]

You have stated several times, with a fair amount of clarity and apparent knowledge, that Bush's actions only become officially illegal when impeachment begins. Until then, whatever he says goes... Zero, thats not what you said in your previous post, and its still not what I said before. You included the words "wrong" and "unAmerican" in the post I quoted. And I said quite explicitly that the word "illegal" doesn't even apply to the impeanchemt process. "Impeachment is a POLITICAL action, not a legal one." (word for word, spelling corrected, emphasis added)

Just about every time you say "according to Russ..." what follows is a lie because if what followed were true, you would simply quote me instead of needing to paraphrase. You need to paraphrase becasue what you WANT me to have said is not what I said.

You did say one thing that is true though: when I write, I purposely write with clarity (unlike you, I might add) to avoid having people like you be able to lie about me and get away with it.

Maybe I should just put it in my sig: Zero, stop posting lies about me.

I don't want an apology, I just want you to stop.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, thats not what you said in your previous post, and its still not what I said before. You included the words "wrong" and "unAmerican" in the post I quoted.

Just about every time you say "according to Russ..." what follows is a lie because if what followed were true, you would simply quote me instead of needing to paraphrase. You need to paraphrase becasue what you WANT me to have said is not what I said.

Maybe I should just put it in my sig: Zero, stop posting lies about me.

Maybe, instead, your sig line should read, "Zero, don't follow my attitude to its logical conclusion"...that would be more accurate. I should have made it clear that I was simply extrapolaling from what you say, not quoting. The implication of your current postings on the law gives the appearance that whatever Bush does is ok, so long as no one tries to convict him of it.

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ,
I don't understand your position on this. I'm not sure if you're a cynic or a die hard Bush devotee. If you check this explanation provided by a Bush advisor for the justification of the use of force in Iraq, you will see that "a threat to national security" justifies the use of force.

http://usembassy.state.gov/japan/wwwh20030324b4.html

If this threat did not exist, then Bush did not have the legal authority to attack Iraq. If false information was used to justify the attack, and if Bush had knowledge of this, then Bush is guilty of a high crime for perpetrating a fraud on the United States government. I am sure that other conspiracy laws would kick in as well.

Edit: As far as any chances for impeachment, I think this will be a matter of timing. If Bush chooses not to run again, or if he fails to get elected, then I doubt that this thing will be far enough along for the political fall out. But if he serves a second term, then if this potential scandal gains momentum and no WMDs are found, just as with Nixon, Bush will find himself very alone. In either case, if this story has legs, then whether or not he is impeached, criminal charges are a near certainty. The Clinton attack dogs will not be forgotten; especially if the Bush attack dogs smell blood.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Considering John Dean was PART of the Water-Gate scandal, I'm sure he was more than happy to compare it to Bush's (unlikely but) possible (to some) scandal, makes him look better. It would be his, and others, first chance to get their names off the "dirt" list.

Basically, I don't see any credibility in this quote.

Yes I would agree that due to his experience, Dean has a unique historical perspective on this issue. Considering that Watergate was 30 years ago, I seriously doubt that he needs to deflect attention from himself. Besides, not only is he an old right winger, we have had Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Rice, Lewinski, and plenty of other conspriracies to keep peoples attention.

So, if the potential for conspiracy by the President or his cabinet, to perpetrate a fraud on the United State Congress, in order to start an illegal war is not a scandal, then what is? This would make Clinton look like a Boy Scout by any comparison.

[schwarzchildradius]

If weapons are nowhere to be found, and Iraq was indeed in compliance with res 1441, then the Pentagon would have no choice but to plant WMD in Iraq and claim that it is legally right.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes I would agree that due to his experience, Dean has a unique historical perspective on this issue. Considering that Watergate was 30 years ago, I seriously doubt that he needs to deflect attention from himself. Besides, not only is he an old right winger, we have had Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Rice, Lewinski, and plenty of other conspriracies to keep peoples attention.

Watergate not being comparable to any of those scandals.

All I see here is an [early] attempt to wipe the Watergate scandal off the top position as worst scandal. The war isn't even over, would it be a scandal if they find WMD? They are still looking so how can people be calling this a scandal at all?! That is a whole country to sweep, it will take a little longer than a few months, anyways, resistence is still there, you can't just walk around looking for weapons when you have the threat of a cross-hair lining up to ur head.

It wouldn't matter how long ago Watergate was, its still the worst scandal in Governments history, and because of this attention is still on it and more attention will be drawn to it as people talk about our current situation being a scandal.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Watergate not being comparable to any of those scandals.

All I see here is an [early] attempt to wipe the Watergate scandal off the top position as worst scandal. The war isn't even over, would it be a scandal if they find WMD? They are still looking so how can people be calling this a scandal at all?! That is a whole country to sweep, it will take a little longer than a few months, anyways, resistence is still there, you can't just walk around looking for weapons when you have the threat of a cross-hair lining up to ur head.

It wouldn't matter how long ago Watergate was, its still the worst scandal in Governments history, and because of this attention is still on it and more attention will be drawn to it as people talk about our current situation being a scandal.

Yes we must still allow some time and see what happens. I have serious doubts since, if our intelligence was any good, we should have known right where the weapons are. So, we will wait. If we find them, and if they are truly significant, then like I have said all along, in spite of my complete distrust of the Bushes or any of their friends, I'll vote for the guy. If we don't find the WMDs, then I'll be the first guy in line clamoring for a jail sentence. As far a Dean, yes I agree, the Republican conspiracies are always the biggest. However, to assume that Watergate motivates his statements, well, to me this sounds like a rationalization to avoid the implications of his statements.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes we must still allow some time and see what happens. I have serious doubts since, if our intelligence was any good, we should have known right where the weapons are. So, we will wait. If we find them, and if they are truly significant, then like I have said all along, in spite of my complete distrust of the Bushes or any of their friends, I'll vote for the guy. If we don't find the WMDs, then I'll be the first guy in line clamoring for a jail sentence. As far a Dean, yes I agree, the Republican conspiracies are always the biggest.

I agree, we should have known where the weapons were, but to have instantaneous knowledge of the whole country is a bit unrealistic, weapons move and intelligence just can't (no matter how good) keep up to the minute data on it.

What if the man truely thought there were weapons. If he did then he went to war to protect from what he thought was a threat. You want to throw him in jail because he was trying to protect his country from the danger he saw? A bit harsh for simply being wrong, and eliminating a threat that needed to be eliminated, even if for different reasons than WMD.

However, to assume that Watergate motivates his statements, well, to me this sounds like a rationalization to avoid the implications of his statements.

Couldn't all explanations be considered rationalization to avoid implications? I mean, if his statement was truely motivated by Watergate, then the explanation that it was motivated by Watergate would seem questionable if you thought his statement was correct. So what it really comes down to is you think, if the scandal comes through, it is the worst scandal in the United States history. Dean's quote simply adds a some validity and perhaps prestige to what you believe. If this is so, it is fair enough.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I agree, we should have known where the weapons were, but to have instantaneous knowledge of the whole country is a bit unrealistic, weapons move and intelligence just can't (no matter how good) keep up to the minute data on it.

What if the man truely thought there were weapons. If he did then he went to war to protect from what he thought was a threat. You want to throw him in jail because he was trying to protect his country from the danger he saw? A bit harsh for simply being wrong, and eliminating a threat that needed to be eliminated, even if for different reasons than WMD.



Couldn't all explanations be considered rationalization to avoid implications? I mean, if his statement was truely motivated by Watergate, then the explanation that it was motivated by Watergate would seem questionable if you thought his statement was correct. So what it really comes down to is you think, if the scandal comes through, it is the worst scandal in the United States history. Dean's quote simply adds a some validity and perhaps prestige to what you believe. If this is so, it is fair enough.

To be honest, it is only with great effort that I can consider that Bush may have been doing the right thing. So, even though I truly believe the worst of the Bushes, if he was lied to, then the liars should be held accountable. It is possible that this was simply an honest mistake, but an error of this magnitude...boy, that's a difficult one to overlook. The Bush administration pushed this thing down everyone’s throat; including Tony Blair's. I lean heavily towards the notion that the luxury of innocent mistakes is void is this context. It is likely that tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts died in this war – many of which were likely victims in this as much the people we were "saving". How many people must die before we cannot accept such an innocent mistake? Bush had a responsibility to be positive before taking an action such as this. Other options could have been explored: Bush could have made assassinations legal and gone after Saddam that way. We could have virtually occupied his country with weapons inspectors. We could have cut deals with his neighbors to incite a political coup. If unjustified, it was the rush to war, not just the war, that begs for justice. I will do a complete about face if we find the imminent threat that supposedly existed. Unfortunately, being a former republican soured by lies and deceit, I have every confidence that most of what we were told were lies. Note also that, at least the last time I checked, no ties to Al Qaeda have been found either...the other big lie! Finally, considering that British Intel just announced that a WMD will likely be used soon, we can see what a great job the Bush administration has done to diminish the threat to our national security.

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Finally, considering that British Intel just announced that a WMD will likely be used soon, we can see what a great job the Bush administration has done to diminish the threat to our national security.

Let me get this straight, you first denounce the war on the reasoning of WMD, you then use the argument of WMD to contradict your first statement. In reality, you are critisizing Bush for using force due to WMD and critisizing his lack of force used in the search for WMD. This can't be.

It is possible that this was simply an honestly mistaken, but an error of this magnitude...boy, that's a difficult one to overlook.

An overlooking of the threat (if we would have been attacked with a WMD) would have been even greater.


The Bush administration pushed this thing down everyone’s throat; including Tony Blair's.

I find this hard to believe, Tony Blair was recieving heavy opposition at home, if he would have been questioning Iraq having WMD he would have had a legitimate reason to sit on the sideline.

It is likely that tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts died in this war – many of which were likely victims in this as much the people we were "saving".

We went into this war to fight Iraq's military, they could have thrown woman and children out there, that doesn't matter, we couldn't help that. Our intent was not to fight conscripts or innocent people, if we could have had our way it would have been entirely military casualties.

How many people must die before we cannot accept such an innocent mistake?

We had our wake up call, how many people died September 11th? Any possible threat is magnified by the possible threat of another terrorist attack.


Bush had a responsibility to be positive before taking an action such as this. Other options could have been explored: Bush could have made assassinations legal and gone after Saddam that way. We could have virtually occupied his country with weapons inspectors. We could have cut deals with his neighbors to incite a political coup. If unjustified, it was the rush to war, not just the war, that begs for justice.

All other means would have came with equal criticism. No matter what he chose to do would have been risky, at least he didn't risk innocent Americans lives. Over the many years Saddam has been a threat, all of our other options were exhausted. How would have the rest of the countries looked at us if we would have swamped his country with weapons inspectors? That would have drawn just as much negative attention as the force Bush chose to use. Cut deals with who? Syria, Iran? Turkey wouldn't even let us use their air space (if I remember correctly). Their neighbors weren't invested as we were in the situation, there is enough turmoil between their neighbors as it is, allying with the United States would cause more.


Note also that, at least the last time I checked, no ties to Al Qaeda have been found either...the other big lie!

I agree here, I believe a very weak link could have been drawn between the two, and he exploited that, not entirely lied about it. This is done all the time at the grocery store, we don't accuse them of high crimes[:)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Russ,
I don't understand your position on this. I'm not sure if you're a cynic or a die hard Bush devotee. If you check this explanation provided by a Bush advisor for the justification of the use of force in Iraq, you will see that "a threat to national security" justifies the use of force. We're going around in circles here. My point (again) is that Bush didn't need a justification, so the content of the justification he used is irrelevant.

The reason he gave any justification at all is for public opinion (and for foreign support) - he's trying to be re-elected.

And for Zero, I must say (again) that though the justification is irrelevant, I still believe it to be valid.

[Ivan Seeking]

I always amuses me to see these posts get longer, and longer, and longer...


Originally posted by kyle_soule
Let me get this straight, you first denounce the war on the reasoning of WMD, you then use the argument of WMD to contradict your first statement. In reality, you are critisizing Bush for using force due to WMD and critisizing his lack of force used in the search for WMD. This can't be.

The question is: Was this explanation used as an excuse to further some other agenda? I am not saying that terrorism poses no threat, rather I am wondering if Saddam had anything to do with it.

An overlooking of the threat (if we would have been attacked with a WMD) would have been even greater.

Perhaps. Of course, this assumes that they didn't do things like; to conveniently ignore the CIA...whoops...we already know they did that.

I find this hard to believe, Tony Blair was recieving heavy opposition at home, if he would have been questioning Iraq having WMD he would have had a legitimate reason to sit on the sideline..

Blair wanted to use a more subtle approach but the Bush people convinced him of the imminent threat.

We went into this war to fight Iraq's military, they could have thrown woman and children out there, that doesn't matter, we couldn't help that. Our intent was not to fight conscripts or innocent people, if we could have had our way it would have been entirely military casualties..

Most of the military were probably victims as much as anyone. Except for the radical elements, these guys had no choice. Have you noticed how the number of Iraqi military causalities is never mentioned? The correct number is likely tens of thousands. If this war was based on a lie, then what should the penalty be for 30,000 deaths?

We had our wake up call, how many people died September 11th? Any possible threat is magnified by the possible threat of another terrorist attack.

The point is that one may have nothing to do with the other. Many Middle East experts have argued that our actions only serve to create alliances between groups that are otherwise enemies. It is American strength in the Middle East that creates all of the hate that motivate terrorist in the first place. Abuse of military power, the justification for which is based on lies, to me would be nothing short of a war crime.


All other means would have came with equal criticism. No matter what he chose to do would have been risky, at least he didn't risk innocent Americans lives. Over the many years Saddam has been a threat, all of our other options were exhausted. How would have the rest of the countries looked at us if we would have swamped his country with weapons inspectors? That would have drawn just as much negative attention as the force Bush chose to use. Cut deals with who? Syria, Iran? Turkey wouldn't even let us use their air space (if I remember correctly). Their neighbors weren't invested as we were in the situation, there is enough turmoil between their neighbors as it is, allying with the United States would cause more...

I agree here, I believe a very weak link could have been drawn between the two, and he exploited that, not entirely lied about it. This is done all the time at the grocery store, we don't accuse them of high crimes[:)]

If Bush and his advisors were acting in good conscience, then I mostly agree. For me, this whole thing really comes down to motive. I perceive Bush as a…insert some really nasty words here...who rushed to war for political gain. I wouldn't really mind being wrong about this. There was a meeting today in Congress where the evidence had prior to the attack on Iraq was presented. We will see what comes of this.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
We're going around in circles here. My point (again) is that Bush didn't need a justification, so the content of the justification he used is irrelevant.

The reason he gave any justification at all is for public opinion (and for foreign support) - he's trying to be re-elected.

And for Zero, I must say (again) that though the justification is irrelevant, I still believe it to be valid.

OK help me out here. I have posted references, the most significant one being directly from the US embassy website. Why do you think that a president can abuse military power at a whim? I agree that the use of military power is a complicated issue; one about which I don't claim to be an expert. But I also know that this country is not supposed to operate as a military dictatorship. Before we go around in any more circles, why don't you post some legal evidence, such as a constitutional amendment, that would give the president unregulated use of military power? The Bush spokesman made it pretty clear I thought that "a threat to national security" was the justification.

Besides, even if he had the legal authority, a fraud perpetrated on the United States government is still a crime. So, he could be charged for the lie, in spite of the war.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Let me get this straight, you first denounce the war on the reasoning of WMD, you then use the argument of WMD to contradict your first statement. In reality, you are critisizing Bush for using force due to WMD and critisizing his lack of force used in the search for WMD. This can't be.

Could it be that Bush and his cabinet have neglected the real threat to national security in order to make Saddam the problem. I have a number of family members involved with law enforcement. Did you know that many police departments have stopped their terrorist surveillance programs for lack of federal funds? The federal government basically screwed local police departments out of monies promised to fight terrorism. As a result, the programs have no funding so they have been abandoned...and the cities have eaten the bill. Suspected terrorists that were once under scrutiny are now running free in the wilds of America. Now that's leadership Mr. Bush! This is exactly the kind of thing I expect from a Bush.[s(]

Edit: Perhaps we needed the anti-terror monies to pay for the Bush tax cut.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
OK help me out here. I have posted references, the most significant one being directly from the US embassy website. Why do you think that a president can abuse military power at a whim? I agree that the use of military power is a complicated issue; one about which I don't claim to be an expert. But I also know that this country is not supposed to operate as a military dictatorship. Before we go around in any more circles, why don't you post some legal evidence, such as a constitutional amendment, that would give the president unregulated use of military power? The Bush spokesman made it pretty clear I thought that "a threat to national security" was the justification. Your references didn't say anything at all about the legal issues here. Maybe you should take a look at the thread on the War Powers Act - we discussed it in detail. The War Powers Act is the only applicable law here - and its unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the power to interpret the constitution: only the supreme court does. But again, much more detail in the other thread.Besides, even if he had the legal authority, a fraud perpetrated on the United States government is still a crime. So, he could be charged for the lie, in spite of the war. Thats a contradiction. If he had the legal authority, how can there be a fraud?

And for the record - my posts are getting shorter. [;)]

oops, found more issues:If this war was based on a lie, then what should the penalty be for 30,000 deaths? Those 30,000 hypothetical deaths must be taken in the context of the millions (I'v heard around 2 million) that have died in the past 10 years in Iraq due to the brutality of Saddam's regime. Do some quick math on how long it takes to kill 30,000 at a rate of 2 million every 10 years and that will tell you how quickly the net result was SAVING lives.It is American strength in the Middle East that creates all of the hate that motivate terrorist in the first place. Quite simply not true. Thats one of Bin Laden's justifications (American troops in Saudia Arabia specifically) but if you remember anything before 1990, you know that terrorism was alive and well for DECADES before the first Gulf War. They hate us first and foremost for who we are and what we believe in.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Your references didn't say anything at all about the legal issues here. Maybe you should take a look at the thread on the War Powers Act - we discussed it in detail. The War Powers Act is the only applicable law here - and its unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the power to interpret the constitution: only the supreme court does. But again, much more detail in the other thread.

I will look. However, I know that it is said that the president can send in troops of limited numbers, for a limited period of time, without the consent of Congress.

Thats a contradiction. If he had the legal authority, how can there be a fraud?

You guys are killing me here. It is a crime to present false information to Congress...even if it's Bush. Even if he had the legal authority to send the troops, if false information was presented to Congress, even if only for political gain, it is still a crime. You may remember that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about doinking; not even a close second in seriousness as compared to lying about a war.


oops, found more issues: Those 30,000 hypothetical deaths must be taken in the context of the millions (I'v heard around 2 million) that have died in the past 10 years in Iraq due to the brutality of Saddam's regime. Do some quick math on how long it takes to kill 30,000 at a rate of 2 million every 10 years and that will tell you how quickly the net result was SAVING lives. Quite simply not true. Thats one of Bin Laden's justifications (American troops in Saudia Arabia specifically) but if you remember anything before 1990, you know that terrorism was alive and well for DECADES before the first Gulf War. They hate us first and foremost for who we are and what we believe in.

I agree that many now hate us for who we are. This is what Bush senior and his oil buddies, and the military industrial complex in general have brought upon us with fifty years of abusive policies. Nearly any Arab or Persian will tell you about decades of abuse by and for United State's interests. For decades the Middle East has seen US stamped weapons destroy their homes and lives. In part, this is due to our support of Israel, but mainly it results from our oil interests. If you doubt this, then note that Jimmy Carter is the only president besides Truman who has authorized the use of Nuclear Arms. The Soviets were poised for a sweep across the Middle East and we didn't have the conventional weapons in place to stop them. In order to protect our oil interests, he approved the Nukes. Luckily, the invasion never happened.

Next, that Saddam is/was a real bad guy is not argued. The question is did our President lie about national security issues to further a hidden agenda. If he lied to gain public support, then perhaps it is because most people would not have agreed with the invasion otherwise. Also, this is not the reason for going in. I will have to review your War Powers Act discussion before commenting further here. I suggest you review the history of the US in the Middle East going much further back. You comment indicates to me that you are younger than I, and that you don't know about all of our escapades in the Middle East. For example, during the Iran/Iraq war, we sold arms to Iran, the counter-measures to Iraq, the counter-counter measures to Iran and so on. Is it any wonder that we are so hated? Of course, now, the young Middle Eastern people don't even need a reason to hate us; we have inspired hatred for so long that is comes automatically. For this reason, we now have no choice but to defend ourselves. The hatred cannot be undone. I think this is an exactly what Eisenhower was warning us about in his final State of the Union address.
.

[Turtle]

Pres.Bush is a liar and deserves to rot in hell.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It is a crime to present false information to Congress...even if it's Bush. Even if he had the legal authority to send the troops, if false information was presented to Congress, even if only for political gain, it is still a crime. You may remember that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about doinking; not even a close second in seriousness as compared to lying about a war. Clinton lied in court testimony under judicial oath. Not the same thing. If a president could be removed for lying to Congress, every president we ever had would have been impeached and removed. Now if there is a criminal investigation and Bush is called to testify, THEN it would be the same thing.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton lied in court testimony under judicial oath. Not the same thing. If a president could be removed for lying to Congress, every president we ever had would have been impeached and removed. Now if there is a criminal investigation and Bush is called to testify, THEN it would be the same thing.

I didn't say it's the same thing; I said that it would be a crime:

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.


Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States
(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme
or artifice with the intent -
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall,subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section,

shall be fined not more than 1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

[russ_watters]

You seem to be implying that any lie by anyone on the floor of Congress is fraud. Are you really?? Have you thought about the implications of that assertion? Like how many people could have been tried for fraud? Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

That law is nowhere near that broad.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You seem to be implying that any lie by anyone on the floor of Congress is fraud. Are you really?? Have you thought about the implications of that assertion? Like how many people could have been tried for fraud? Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

That law is nowhere near that broad.

I quoted exactly, the law. It is just as broad as it says. I implied nothing.

[FZ+]

Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

That doesn't mean that congressmen should be allowed to lie regularly. In fact, it's rather disturbing. Where did you get that?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
That doesn't mean that congressmen should be allowed to lie regularly. In fact, it's rather disturbing. Where did you get that?

IMHO, we have a failure to understand the difference between politics and fraud. I feel that a certain amount of funny business in Congress is generally tolerated as a part of "the art of what's possible", however, if caught in a significant lie, bad things happen to politicians. We have seen this again and again in US politics; so much so I can hardly remember half of the scandals of the last 30 years.

[schwarzchildradius]

Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.
I dare you to find one that's not a Republican!

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I quoted exactly, the law. It is just as broad as it says. I implied nothing. Well in that case, do you think that pretty much every politician who ever lived has comitted fraud under that definition? And if so, should they all have been jailed?We have seen this again and again in US politics; so much so I can hardly remember half of the scandals of the last 30 years. And exactly how many of them have ended up in jail.I dare you to find one that's not a Republican! You're not serious, are you?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well in that case, do you think that pretty much every politician who ever lived has comitted fraud under that definition? And if so, should they all have been jailed? And exactly how many of them have ended up in jail.

I would agree that this scenario is extremely unlikely. Even in a worst case for Bush, the most likely results of a scandal would normally be that he not run again. Unfortunately, I doubt this will be resolved in time. If he did intentionally lead the country into war on false pretenses, and if it can be shown that his actions actually constitute an intentional fraud, then few scandals in U.S. history would even come close in significance. Of course, this would probably require that at least one of his closest advisors turn on him, this also seems unlikely. Even if guilty to the highest degree, I am quite sure that others would take the heat for Bush. The Republicans have too much at stake.

But, russ, you seem to argue against a constitutional government. Are you a just a cynic, or do you like Bush that much? You seem to argue that any lie of any significance should be OK. Given the worst potential scenario here, how much worse can a presidential lie get? Where do you draw the line?

[Zero]

Bush can get away with anything, because he has the media in his pocket, and he is willing to lie constantly. Other people would tell a single lie and try to make it work; Bush tells multiple contradictory lies, and somehow gets a relatively free ride out of the media and Congress.

[kyle_soule]

Think of it this way, Ivan Seeking, wouldn't the incarceration of our countries leader cause extreme mistrust and doubt of the competence of the American government? The ignorance of the majority helps fuel our democracy, if you throw Bush in jail it becomes widespread, common knowledge - to the masses - that our country is run by politicians and that it [our government] is indeed corrupt and not always in the best interest of the people.

People would feel insecure due to the lack of protection from the government and would, perhaps ultimately, overthrow it for something else, no other form of government works as well and has as much freedoms as democracy.

Is it really in the best interest of future generations and the future of democracy (in the US at least) to jail our President?

Do you want your grandchildren growing up under a Dictator?

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Is it really in the best interest of future generations and the future of democracy (in the US at least) to jail our President?

Do you want your grandchildren growing up under a Dictator?

Eh, I don't buy it. I agree that at some point we could experience a genuine crisis of government, but I think that to allow extreme corruption to go unchallenged does greater harm. Still, to see a former President doing time, wow, what a concept! In the end however, if something this drastic was to happen, it would [ideally] serve as evidence that the US system of government does work as it should; rather than to motivate a complete collapse. I don't generally buy into Chicken Little scenarios [a comment on the idea, not you personally [:D]]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
But, russ, you seem to argue against a constitutional government. Are you a just a cynic, or do you like Bush that much? You seem to argue that any lie of any significance should be OK. Given the worst potential scenario here, how much worse can a presidential lie get? Where do you draw the line? No, thats not it at all. I just don't think that even if the worst of what people alledge is true, its still not as bad as people are saying it is.

In just about every war except WWII, public opinion had to be stroked to get public support.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well in that case, do you think that pretty much every politician who ever lived has comitted fraud under that definition? And if so, should they all have been jailed?

I think that officials who like in governmental capacity should be punished...whether or not that corrective measure is jail or not..I suppose that it would depend on more specifics.

A problem doesn't get fixed by becoming indifferent to it.

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Think of it this way, Ivan Seeking, wouldn't the incarceration of our countries leader cause extreme mistrust and doubt of the competence of the American government?


Well, if there is valid reason for that mistrust, that is a good thing.


The ignorance of the majority helps fuel our democracy,


Now, if that isn't the most Orwellian statement. I could only imagine the shock that the founders of this nation would have at hearing a statement like that. The thing about self-rule is that it works better with better general knowledge of the public. Ignorance of the masses is one factor that allows politicians to lie.


if you throw Bush in jail it becomes widespread, common knowledge - to the masses - that our country is run by politicians and that it [our government] is indeed corrupt and not always in the best interest of the people.


First of all, I think that people should realize this. Secondly, I think that they often do, to a degree. Many people have come to the feeling of disenfranchisement.


People would feel insecure due to the lack of protection from the government and would, perhaps ultimately, overthrow it for something else, no other form of government works as well and has as much freedoms as democracy.


So, people should have a false sense of daddy taking care fo them?
If the government is not doing what it should be, why preserve it?
If people have a problem with the honesty of rulers, do you really think that they'd install some kind of elite rule? I think that it would be more likely that a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction comes to be, that a popular, peaceful movement within legal limits would take place, especially considering how the US military could crush any rebellion...unless military people support the rebellion.
If the virtues of democracy, such as leadership accountability, are not upheld, then what is left of the democracy, but the name?


Is it really in the best interest of future generations and the future of democracy (in the US at least) to jail our President?


Yes, it will make people think twice about defrauding, and it could possibly instill a feeling among people that there is accountability, which would give people a sense of confidence in their government, rather the scenario that you envision.

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Think of it this way, Ivan Seeking, wouldn't the incarceration of our countries leader cause extreme mistrust and doubt of the competence of the American government? The ignorance of the majority helps fuel our democracy, if you throw Bush in jail it becomes widespread, common knowledge - to the masses - that our country is run by politicians and that it [our government] is indeed corrupt and not always in the best interest of the people.

People would feel insecure due to the lack of protection from the government and would, perhaps ultimately, overthrow it for something else, no other form of government works as well and has as much freedoms as democracy.

Is it really in the best interest of future generations and the future of democracy (in the US at least) to jail our President?

Do you want your grandchildren growing up under a Dictator?

Hmmm...large chunks of our government, and population, thought it was perfectly reasonable to attack Clinton based on lies and innuendo, on the off-chance that one of the charges would stick...and now we have a dictator, right?

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Eh, I don't buy it. I agree that at some point we could experience a genuine crisis of government, but I think that to allow extreme corruption to go unchallenged does greater harm. Still, to see a former President doing time, wow, what a concept! In the end however, if something this drastic was to happen, it would [ideally] serve as evidence that the US system of government does work as it should; rather than to motivate a complete collapse. I don't generally buy into Chicken Little scenarios [a comment on the idea, not you personally [:D]]

Challenging corruption is good, impeach him, don't throw him in jail like, IMO, you are rashly suggesting.

The recycling of Presidents doesn't seem like an operational government to me[:)] I would hope people wouldn't see it as a healthy government either. Getting rid of corruption is good but putting your President in jail with the people [stereotypical] that are in there doesn't seem good to me.

My scenario was certainly worst imagineable case, but it illustrated my point well, jailing the President would do more harm, IMHO, than good.

Hmmm...large chunks of our government, and population, thought it was perfectly reasonable to attack Clinton based on lies and innuendo, on the off-chance that one of the charges would stick...and now we have a dictator, right?

Clinton was jailed? He sure wasn't, so why would we have a dictator?

Russ was right about you Zero.

To Dissident Dan
It sure did sound like something George Orwell would say[:)] (I'm proud of myself)

You seem to think that a general mistrust and lack of faith in our government is good? How can your government function without faith and trust, at least to a small degree?

The thing about self-rule is that it works better with better general knowledge of the public. Ignorance of the masses is one factor that allows politicians to lie.

Ah self-rule, I would like that, I agree with you there. Politicians do lie, and you say ignorance allows this, so are you agreeing that the majority are ignorant?

So, people should have a false sense of daddy taking care fo them?

Yes, people like this. If they have it and never run into a problem, they live happy lives, and die, this is good. People don't need to be constantly watching there backs so the government doesn't get them, when in fact they would never experience this side of the government.

Yes, it will make people think twice about defrauding, and it could possibly instill a feeling among people that there is accountability, which would give people a sense of confidence in their government, rather the scenario that you envision.

Perhaps that feeling would be a possible outcome; although (more likely), outweighed by fear of government.

[Zero]

Poor Kyle...Russ is right twice a day, like a broken clock.

Nice of you to set up a strawman to knock down. I never said Clinton was jailed, but I'm sure many fools thought he should have been. The Republican party had no problem with destroying a president for PURELY political reasons. Now, they suggest that no one should question their president, because it would be bad for America.

Prison is too good for Bush. He should have to go work a minimum wage job, and see how well his tax cuts help the economy. Or, better yet, he should go to Iraq and defent his precious oil...

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Poor Kyle... you don't like the truth either, do you?















Pathetic.

If your [pre]conceived truth is the truth you speak of...no, I surely don't want it. Unless of course you didn't manipulate what was said and it in fact was the intent of the statement, then SURE! I want the truth.

[Zero]

Oh, and the dictatorship is what we'll have if we continue to allow Bush and the Republicans to continue to lie every time they move their lips.

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and the dictatorship is what we'll have if we continue to allow Bush and the Republicans to continue to lie every time they move their lips.

Are you cutting and pasting this on every thread?

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Are you cutting and pasting this on every thread?

I think it bears repeating, don't you?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it bears repeating, don't you? Well, it doesn't get any less funny the more you post it, just more pathetic.

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Challenging corruption is good, impeach him, don't throw him in jail like, IMO, you are rashly suggesting.

Interesting. In one sense, I can see your point. In another sense, to go through an impeachment process cripples the federal government for such a significant period of time that I question the value of such attacks - except in the most egregious cases. Of course, in the case of Clinton, I felt that any legal actions should have been delayed since no issues of national defense or national interests were involved. I see the problem of character as significant, but, all things considered, I thought the whole thing was way out of proportion. In the case of a lie to justify a war, this is another thing altogether. If Bush is guilty and still in office, then I would support impeachment beyond a doubt. If this supposed lie was motivated by ulterior motives, and it was not due to over-zealousness, then I'm thinking jail. If the administration simply got carried away with bad but honest information or circumstantial evidence, then a broad range of interpretations are possible. In this event, I may not even support impeachment.

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, it doesn't get any less funny the more you post it, just more pathetic.

Well, you might think that the truth is pathetic, and if it bothers you that much, I can start deleting your useless posts again.[g)]

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Interesting. In one sense, I can see your point. In another sense, to go through an impeachment process cripples the federal government for such a significant period of time that I question the value of such attacks - except in the most egregious cases. Of course, in the case of Clinton, I felt that any legal actions should have been delayed since no issues of national defense or national interests were involved. I see the problem of character as significant, but, all things considered, I thought the whole thing was way out of proportion. In the case of a lie to justify a war, this is another thing altogether. If Bush is guilty and still in office, then I would support impeachment beyond a doubt. If this supposed lie was motivated by ulterior motives, and it was not due to over-zealousness, then I'm thinking jail. If the administration simply got carried away with bad but honest information or circumstantial evidence, then a broad range of interpretations are possible. In this event, I may not even support impeachment.

I never thought of the possibility to postpone trials, this is certainly an idea. Although in some cases it is a bit risky, as evidence and such could be tampered or destroyed. Monika could have been killed to save Clinton's reputation, FOR INSTANCE!!, I'm not making any judgements about Clinton's character in saying that he would have someone killed for his own benefit.

I believe that the administration got carried away, this is why I do not subscribe to impeachment, punishment, or jail; I think the political backlash he will suffer, if no weapons are found, will be enough punishment.

As Senator McCain said - why would Bush use WMD as a justification for war if he didn't truely believe they were there, they would find out that he was lying after the war if they weren't there (note: war isn't over).

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
As Senator McCain said - why would Bush use WMD as a justification for war if he didn't truely believe they were there, they would find out that he was lying after the war if they weren't there (note: war isn't over).

I have always suspected that Bush may be a dupe for the military industrial complex. I also found it interesting that at a luncheon recently held for highly influential Republicans, Bush Sr felt compelled to reassure everyone that he and Bush Jr speak frequently. Comments like this are highly crafted and only happen for a reason. For a long time the story was that Bush Sr has little influence.