If Bush knowingly lied about WMDs, should he go to jail? [Archive]

Ivan Seeking

Jun21-03, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Clinton lied. Should he go to jail? And in his case it's not an "if". It's a fact.

I'm not sure why they failed to press charges. Perhaps the legal case wasn't strong enough? More likely thought the significance plays a role as in "the punishment should fit the crime"? My impression was that even the Clinton attack dogs saw no value in pursuing his "punishment" any further.

BTW I thought Bush was already ruined and disgraced politically.

One wouldn't think so looking at the polls. Also, as much as I dislike the Bushes, I'm still holding out for any potential finds and findings. Perhaps given all of the evidence, Congress will judge that the interpretations made were reasonable. Why do you feel that his goose is already cooked?

Edit: Heck. The Bush people are already rattling their sabers at Iran for yet another war.

kat

Jun21-03, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I'm not sure why they failed to press charges. Perhaps the legal case wasn't strong enough? More likely thought the significance plays a role as in "the punishment should fit the crime"? My impression was that even the Clinton attack dogs saw no value in pursuing his "punishment" any further.

Which lies are you two talking about? The sex issues or the more relevant Kosovo?

Dissident Dan

Jun21-03, 01:54 PM

I don't know why people continue to try to defend bush by pointing to the Clinton situation. You should discuss the issue at hand, instead of saying, "Well, he's a bad guy, too."

I don't know any information regarding Clinton and lies about Kosovo. If he did, then I think that he should have been punished according to his crimes, just the same as bush should be punished about any discovered lies that he told to sell the war.

Zero

Jun21-03, 01:55 PM

Clinton was dragged over the coals for a consentual sexual encounter that was no concern of anyone's, besides the parties involved. Much was made about his waffling over the details.

Bush has commited this country to an unending war for nebulous reasons, and has redefined the word 'truth' to mean 'whatever statement is politically expedient, in order to advance the empire'.

drag

Jun21-03, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Zero
...for nebulous reasons,...
Some of those "nebulous" reasons that many still consider of prime importance are the same reasons that helped form the American nation
and many other free nations in their current form. Unfortunetly,
it appears that such ideals are considered... impractical ?
by many in modern societies. Too bad that they forgot why
they live the way they do to the point that they no longer care.

Live long and prosper.

Zero

Jun21-03, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by drag
Some of those "nebulous" reasons that many still consider of prime importance are the same reasons that helped form the American nation
and many other free nations in their current form. Unfortunetly,
it appears that such ideals are considered... impractical ?
by many in modern societies. Too bad that they forgot why
they live the way they do to the point that they no longer care.

Live long and prosper. Hmmm...America was formed on the basis that a Third World country with a fourth-rate military was a 'clear and present danger'? It is an American ideal to raid a country, secure its oil fields, and forget to secure nuclear materials? And, of course, it must be the American Way to lie to the people about exactly why we attack, because we are founded on the principle that public leaders can lie about national defense, so long as they don't cheat on their wife?

Laser Eyes

Jun21-03, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Clinton was dragged over the coals for a consentual sexual encounter that was no concern of anyone's, besides the parties involved.Are you serious? "no concern of anyone's"? A man with his finger on the nuclear bomb, the most powerful man in the world, and you think it is no-one else's concern that this man is cheating on his wife and having "sexual relations" with a girl who works for him? On the contrary I think it positively disentitles him to be president. You think the character of the president is no-else's concern?

kat

Jun21-03, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I don't know why people continue to try to defend bush by pointing to the Clinton situation. You should discuss the issue at hand, instead of saying, "Well, he's a bad guy, too."

I don't know any information regarding Clinton and lies about Kosovo. If he did, then I think that he should have been punished according to his crimes, just the same as bush should be punished about any discovered lies that he told to sell the war.

Well, I wasn't defending Bush, there were many valid parallels in the Clinton/Kosovo era as there are in the Bush/Iraq era. If this is a pattern, then I would think it would be very important to view it as a whole, as well as possible (ongoing) complicity of congress.

In regards to those "blaming" Clinton, one thing I really do hate is this focus on the lies related to Lewinsky, when there were so many others that were virtually ignored by the press and public, including Kosovo.

Ivan Seeking

Jun21-03, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by kat
...one thing I really do hate is this focus on the lies related to Lewinsky, when there were so many others that were virtually ignored by the press and public, including Kosovo.

Could you fill us in? I for one am interested.

Ivan Seeking

Jun21-03, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by drag
Some of those "nebulous" reasons that many still consider of prime importance are the same reasons that helped form the American nation
and many other free nations in their current form. Unfortunetly,
it appears that such ideals are considered... impractical ?
by many in modern societies. Too bad that they forgot why
they live the way they do to the point that they no longer care.

Live long and prosper.

This is a funny example as viewed in the context of a potential fraud committed by the President of this free nation "by the people and for the people". I would think that patriotism should start at home - beginning with our own President. One might think that you don't value the very thing that you defend.

Zero

Jun21-03, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by kat
Well, I wasn't defending Bush, there were many valid parallels in the Clinton/Kosovo era as there are in the Bush/Iraq era. If this is a pattern, then I would think it would be very important to view it as a whole, as well as possible (ongoing) complicity of congress.

In regards to those "blaming" Clinton, one thing I really do hate is this focus on the lies related to Lewinsky, when there were so many others that were virtually ignored by the press and public, including Kosovo.

Good point bout Kosovo, if it is true...too bad everyone was staring at his crotch instead of his policy. However, it is too late to do anything about him. Bush is still in office, and we can do something about him...if anyone is willing.

Ivan Seeking

Jun22-03, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Zero
...too bad everyone was staring at his crotch

[8)] .

I did not.

[:D]

Jun22-03, 02:04 AM

sure, clinton lied about having sex, but whose business was that? if a husband is caught having sex with his secretary, is he going to be straight-forward with his wife about it? in my opinion, the republicans were looking for an excuse to get rid of him, and ken starr certainly went out of his jurisdiction of investigating whitewater.

bush actually got tried with blair for warcrimes, too bad they practically blackmailed belgium to throw the charges out. rumsfeld (i think) threatened to move nato out of belgium if bush got tried. that's ridiculous, he should get tried now too. and i think he wanted to move nato over to the us, so bush would have control over a larger war power.

Ivan Seeking

Jun22-03, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
Are you serious? "no concern of anyone's"? A man with his finger on the nuclear bomb, the most powerful man in the world, and you think it is no-one else's concern that this man is cheating on his wife and having "sexual relations" with a girl who works for him? On the contrary I think it positively disentitles him to be president. You think the character of the president is no-else's concern?

Personally, I think the scrutiny of people’s sex lives has no place in politics. Many great leaders from history would never endure today's artificial, hype-media driven, puritan standards. Even though I think character and the quality of a person does matter, we must also allow that great leaders are often a bit the scoundrel when it comes to their personal affairs. Kennedy, Roosevelt, I have even read recently that Lincoln had affairs. In fact, not so long ago, to have a mistress was standard procedure for the elite of society.

A bit disturbing though is your implication that sexual promiscuity makes nuclear war more likely. Come on. I would argue any day of the week that Bush is much more likely to get us all killed than Clinton. Bush's idea of diplomacy is a six shooter, mindless nationalistic rhetoric, and brilliant statements like calling our war on terrorism a "crusade" - a really good way to start a war with all of Islam!

Clinton lied under oath. For this I think he was punished appropriately. I also thought he should have been left alone and then charged as such after leaving office. The way that he was attacked, crippling this country for nearly four years, I thought was a greater crime than what Clinton did. It proved to me that none of Clinton's opposition had this country's best interest at heart. The attack on Clinton was fueled only by hatred and partisanship.

Now, we see people who would defend a President who may have started a war based on lies; this to further the cause of democracy. How's that for irony?

russ_watters

Jun23-03, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If a fraud was perpetrated by Bush and some of his administration, on the people and Congress of this country, and the world in general, should he do time, or should he only be ruined and disgraced politically? I voted for "other" since its a loaded question. You assume that a lie = fraud.

kyleb

Jun23-03, 12:43 AM

well ya, he assumed we were speaking commonly accepted english. is that too far fetched for you russ?

maybe it also depends on how you define "is"? [:D]

russ_watters

Jun24-03, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by kyleb
well ya, he assumed we were speaking commonly accepted english. is that too far fetched for you russ?

maybe it also depends on how you define "is"? [:D] *I* am speaking English. It appears that you and others are speaking languages of your own invention. Do I need to pull out the dictionary AGAIN ? Not all lies are fraud and not all fraud comes from lies - a lie is not the only form of deception. And that applies to both the dictionary definition and the legal one.

Example: A bluff in poker fits the dictionary definition of fraud but not the legal one and is not a lie.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." is a lie, but not fraud.

Laser Eyes

Jun24-03, 01:12 AM

Personally, I think the scrutiny of people’s sex lives has no place in politics.That is certainly one view but judging by the interest shown by the media (which usually reflects public interest) it is not the view of the public in general.

Turtle

Jun24-03, 04:47 PM

Yes,Bush should go to jail, he can meet his enron buddies, and have cakes made by Martha Stewart.

Zero

Jun24-03, 06:13 PM

What about lying about the reasons to invade other countries, increase military spending, cut taxes for the wealthy, slash services, and strip people of their civil liberties?

Oh, wait...that's not fraud, that is the Republican Party platform.

russ_watters

Jun25-03, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Zero
.... [zz)] Zero, do you have ANYTHING useful to say?

Ivan Seeking

Jun25-03, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
That is certainly one view but judging by the interest shown by the media (which usually reflects public interest) it is not the view of the public in general.

Yes. Along with Jerry Springer, Heraldo, The National Enquirer, Real TV, Faces of Death or the Craptrix part whatever, or any other movie that has lots of violence and death. Popularity is no measure of significance. Popularity is only a transient measure of perceived importance. If my opinion is in the minority then I will consider this the highest of compliments.

Ivan Seeking

Jun25-03, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I voted for "other" since its a loaded question. You assume that a lie = fraud.

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.

Note the launguage: "whoever, in any manner", "falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact", "makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation".

How exactly does lying about the motives for a war fail to meet this criteria? Russ, I think you are confusing "not getting caught" with "being OK".

kyleb

Jun25-03, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
*I* am speaking English. It appears that you and others are speaking languages of your own invention. Do I need to pull out the dictionary AGAIN ? Not all lies are fraud and not all fraud comes from lies - a lie is not the only form of deception. And that applies to both the dictionary definition and the legal one.

Example: A bluff in poker fits the dictionary definition of fraud but not the legal one and is not a lie.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." is a lie, but not fraud.

but we are speaking of a particular situation here, not generalizations. however, generally, the words are synonymous.

Entry: bluff
Function: noun
Definition: boast
Synonyms: braggadocio, bragging, bravado, bull****, deception, delusion, facade, fake, false colors, false front, feint, fraud, front, humbug, jiving, lie, pretence, pretext, ruse, sham, show, stall, subterfuge, trick
Antonyms: honesty, reality, truth
Concept: lying

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=bluff

Zero

Jun25-03, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[zz)] Zero, do you have ANYTHING useful to say?

The next post like this gets deleted, Russ...you aren't addingf anything besides following around behind me, mad because my opinion is different from yours(and my opinion is more correct than yiours, but that is besides the point)

russ_watters

Jun25-03, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The next post like this gets deleted, Russ...you aren't addingf anything besides following around behind me, mad because my opinion is different from yours(and my opinion is more correct than yiours, but that is besides the point) While you are at it, delete every post of yours that I cited in that way. Zero, seriously - posts like that make no useful contribution whatsoever to this board. The level of your posts has dropped significantly recently. Now you're doing little besides ranting and flaming.

Yeah, I know most people are simply ignoring you now, but I don't. I'll call you out every time you do something like that.

Zero

Jun25-03, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
While you are at it, delete every post of yours that I cited in that way. Zero, seriously - posts like that make no useful contribution whatsoever to this board. The level of your posts has dropped significantly recently. Now you're doing little besides ranting and flaming.

Yeah, I know most people are simply ignoring you now, but I don't. I'll call you out every time you do something like that.

Well, ignore teh truth at your peril...if you want to hear just whjat you agree with, there are plenty of liars on Fox News to back you up.

Ivan Seeking

Jun25-03, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Zero
there are plenty of liars on Fox News

Boy you've got that right. I was appalled during the war when, after having to endure Olly North and right wing rhetoric from Fox News ad nausea, we see the expert witness Mark Furman appear for commentary. Remember Mark Furman - the crooked cop who along with his scumbag buddy broke the law and were probably responsible for OJ getting off the hook? This is the same guy who, after getting kicked off the LAPD, then went to live with a skin-head militant survivalist group in Idaho. Now he works for Fox News!

kat

Jun25-03, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Could you fill us in? I for one am interested.

Ivan, if you want to find out about past presidents lying, on any subject simply google like this "clinton lies taxes" "clinton lies kosovo" "all presidents lie taxes". As I mentioned in another thread, the only president (off the top off my head) that I can remember not lying was Carter, and that may not be because he always told the truth it may just be indicative of my occasionally poor memory.

As for Kosovo, the parrallel goes like this
Iraq-
Saddam-freind of U.S.
things turn ugly
Saddam given ultimatums
WMD possibility exagerated
Bush's approach eventually leads to no other option then war.
War is "over" and no WMD found
Oops, wait..after a few months hidden under a rose garden a nuclear component is found..trickle begins?

Kosovo-
Milosevic-friend of U.S.
things turn ugly
U.S.(NATO) sets up Rambouillet agreement, and equally sets up milosevic with a plan he could never accept.
Milosevic given ultimatum (accept agreement or we attack etc.)
Genocide activities cited, huge numbers of dead are given(100k, 500k etc.)
The U.S. bombs, lies about damage and ignores civilian deaths (this is an ugly bit here and I think Bush should be commended for taking a different route that saved a lot of lives)
The "war" is over.
Every one begins to look for the genocidal victims..then not only doubts but claims of lies are raised in October 1999 when a Spanish forensic team left Kosovo after exhuming only 187 bodies. Members of the team publicly challenged NATO's estimated death toll, dismissing it as "war propaganda."
The media joins in, the ngo's join in, the public cries fowl, claims are made of "intentionally misled"..

sound familiar?

Until finally

The bodies begin to appear, and almost 2 years later they are finding that the bodies have been moved from the origional place of death to forest of the serbian national park, a police training camp, hidden in the back of a large truck, stacked one upon the other and then sunk to the bottom of a lake.

So, the moral? don't make accusations until you've given it some time or you might end up with mud on your face.

Ivan Seeking

Jun25-03, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by kat
So, the moral? don't make accusations until you've given it some time or you might end up with mud on your face.

Hey, I'm just taking my lead from John Dean. How could I possibly go wrong?![:D] [:D] [:D]

Actually, I agree that it is a bit early to be picking out Bush's jail cell. I also must admit that my confidence is so high that any Bush will do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons that I can barely consider that this war may have been justified. Still, I will wait before passing sentence [since I always have the final say in these matters [:D]] Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised and we will find that the world was on the brink of complete annihilation. As far a Kosovo, well, perhaps some analogies do exist. I will have to review this issue a bit for some historical perspective. My life was so busy during that period of time that I don’t remember many details.

I must add though that I have never believed in the WMDs for the following reason: If Saddam had them, we never would have sent in troops to get them. If Saddam was as dangerous as Bush claimed, then Bush also knew that going in was suicide for perhaps hundreds of thousands of troops. If he had WMDs, Saddam would have used them.

schwarzchildradius

Jun28-03, 03:57 AM

To the Gallows with 41, 43, and thier gang of crooked cronies! Thier lies cost hundreds if not thousands of American and Foreign lives uselessly wasted to further enrich the already wealthy. If there is a God, they will spend eternity in Hell!

kat

Jun28-03, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Actually, I agree that it is a bit early to be picking out Bush's jail cell. I also must admit that my confidence is so high that any Bush will do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons that I can barely consider that this war may have been justified. Still, I will wait before passing sentence [since I always have the final say in these matters [:D]] Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised and we will find that the world was on the brink of complete annihilation.
I might be inclined to say that he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but then again those mass grave sites everyones been tripping on were probably all just a bad dream anyway, well at least somebodies bad dream eh?

I must add though that I have never believed in the WMDs for the following reason: If Saddam had them, we never would have sent in troops to get them. If Saddam was as dangerous as Bush claimed, then Bush also knew that going in was suicide for perhaps hundreds of thousands of troops. If he had WMDs, Saddam would have used them. Actually, I don't think this holds water. Sadam would have counted on an air attack and then a slower ground movement, the quick rush to baghdad probably threw a lot of plans out of wack. War games also had shown that WMD's would have done little damage to our quick moving forces. He may have also discounted the U.S. full invasion, or there could have been a hundred other abstract and off the wall ideas going through his head, I mean after all he still claimed to have won the first war. His having had WMD's has never been questioned, he had them , we know this because he's used them, this is well documented.
Also, if he doesn't have them the guilt is VERY broad and wide, Bush wasn't the only one that stated they existed. Everyone from Blix to Chirac made statements about their having possessed them and not accounting for disposal.

Ivan Seeking

Jun29-03, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by kat
I might be inclined to say that he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but then again those mass grave sites everyones been tripping on were probably all just a bad dream anyway, well at least somebodies bad dream eh?

The question is not did he do the right thing; this implies all sorts of moral judgements that could be argued ad infinitum. The question is, did he do a legal thing...or did he crap all over the US Constitution in order to preserve freedom?

Actually, I don't think this holds water. Sadam would have counted on an air attack and then a slower ground movement, the quick rush to baghdad probably threw a lot of plans out of wack. War games also had shown that WMD's would have done little damage to our quick moving forces. He may have also discounted the U.S. full invasion, or there could have been a hundred other abstract and off the wall ideas going through his head, I mean after all he still claimed to have won the first war. His having had WMD's has never been questioned, he had them , we know this because he's used them, this is well documented.
Also, if he doesn't have them the guilt is VERY broad and wide, Bush wasn't the only one that stated they existed. Everyone from Blix to Chirac made statements about their having possessed them and not accounting for disposal.

Well, I know this was the White House hyperbole; and at first I bought into it. But here is the problem that I see with this explanation. If he was so surprised, then why can't we find the weapons? Also, why would we send 60,000 troops to their deaths? We would have taken him out some other way - primarily by air. Bush's strategy betrays his words.

kat

Jun29-03, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The question is not did he do the right thing; this implies all sorts of moral judgements that could be argued ad infinitum. The question is, did he do a legal thing...or did he crap all over the US Constitution in order to preserve freedom?

If you don't want to wander into justification and moral judgements then I guess you shouldn't make comments like this:

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
[B]
my confidence is so high that any Bush will do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons that I can barely consider that this war may have been justified.

But, since you did, I will stick with my opinion.

Originally posted by Kat

I might be inclined to say that he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but then again those mass grave sites everyones been tripping on were probably all just a bad dream anyway, well at least somebodies bad dream eh?

Ivan Seeking

Jun29-03, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by kat
If you don't want to wander into justification and moral judgements then I guess you shouldn't make comments like this:

I was indicating that in spite of my personal feelings about the Bushes, I still try to remain objective - to allow for the possibility that Bush was doing the right thing. Of course, this moral interpretation will take some time. We may well make things worse than it was before this whole thing is over...if it is ever over.

However, the question was a legal one. In spite of any feelings about right or wrong, there is a real possibility that Bush was complicit is one the worst cases of abuse of presidential power in US history. He may be guilty of high crimes. If so, the question was, should he be held accountable for his actions like the rest of us? The US Constitution must come before foreign policy concerns or we are fighting for nothing.

Zero

Jun30-03, 01:34 AM

I don't think it matters a single bit if Bush did the right thing or not(and we know he didn't). What matters is, if we allow the president to make up reasons for actions, and hope it turnsout ok after teh fact, how long will it be until he or someone else uses that same credulity to do something more purely heinous?

kat

Jun30-03, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I don't think it matters a single bit if Bush did the right thing or not(and we know he didn't). Is this a collective "we" or a royal "we"? because this royal "we"[:))] and a majority of collective "we's" disagree. What matters is, if we allow the president to make up reasons for actions, and hope it turnsout ok after teh fact, how long will it be until he or someone else uses that same credulity to do something more purely heinous?

I agree in part, but first let's prove that the reasons were "made up" and not either 1. undiscovered and 2. misinformed. Secondly, we need to recognize that Bush and in his administration were not alone, many world leaders and intelligence experts have believed Iraq possessed these types of weapons or was in the process of making them, including Chiraq, Blix, Clinton and numerous Democratic Senators. Also, this is why we have a system of checks and balances, which brings in the complicity of congress....I would also point out that several democratic senators who supported the october bill authorizing the use of force said that they recieved the same security information as Bush and still supported his actions.

Zero

Jun30-03, 10:36 AM

'We' meaning the majority of the world, not counting Americans who are plugged into the right-wing media.

Zero

Jun30-03, 10:43 AM

The administration was surely guilty of misrepresentation. Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274)

Enjoy the link.

kat

Jun30-03, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Zero
'We' meaning the majority of the world, not counting Americans who are plugged into the right-wing media.

1. Which media is that Zero? I need to get a good laugh at the type of media you think I might be plugged into. [8)]
2. Do you have a world survey showing that the majority of the world does not agree it's a good thing to have Saddam gone?
3. Does the majority of the world have a good track record on knowing what is best for those who might have joined the corpses laying across Iraq in mass graves, do they speak for those who have loved ones lying in mass graves, do they speak for the oppressed, do they speak for the tortured?
4. In the end, what will matter is what the Iraqi's will think, any guesses at that at this point would be premature, or should the world usurp their voices just as Saddam has done?

5. Why don't you address the second part of my post, just to keep the thread on topic. mmmkay?

Zero

Jun30-03, 10:57 AM

1) at this point, the mainstream mediea is mostly right-wing, especially when it comes time to murder brown people(war)

2)that ISN'T THE POINT!! you should really stop thinking that Saddam being gone is the issue...because it isn't at all.

3)Again, irrelevant to the issue.

4)Three in a row irrelevant.

5) This is partially addressed in the link I posted.

You should really try to stay on the topic.[6)]

kat

Jun30-03, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Zero
1) at this point, the mainstream mediea is mostly right-wing, especially when it comes time to murder brown people(war) I'm sorry but "the mainstream media" doesn't tell me much. I don't watch T.V....I access multiple online sources, government documents from several countries, direct information from family members scattered across the middle east and from several U.N supervisors. So, please stop with the main stream right wing media influence b.s., there's no relevency to that and my opinions. As for ignoring the murdering of "brown people", Many of my family members, in fact even my children are "brown people" actually, I think correctly that would be "olive people"...In this regard the west has always been colored blind, even those who equate themselves to be human rights activists. Where's the lefts outrage at events in other parts of the world involving "brown" people, or do they only care about certain brown people who are of certain religous/or political backgrounds?

2)that ISN'T THE POINT!! you should really stop thinking that Saddam being gone is the issue...because it isn't at all. It's always been MY point, it was the entire basis on which I based my very reserved support on the war upon. It will continue to be MY point, even if it doesn't fit into your view of important benefits. I find it odd that you claim the right ignores the deaths of these people, and then claim that their deaths are irrelevent all in the same post.

You should really try to stay on the topic.[6)] Lol, then address the second paragraph of my post above. You are the one who ignored the relevent portion of my response~[;)]

Zero

Jun30-03, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by kat
It's always been MY point, it was the entire basis on which I based my very reserved support on the war upon. It will continue to be MY point, even if it doesn't fit into your view of important benefits. I find it odd that you claim the right ignores the deaths of these people, and then claim that their deaths are irrelevent all in the same post.

No way. I guess the best way to describe it is this: removing Saddam from power may have been the most wonderful human accomplishment of the last 5 years. Nevertheless, if the stated reasons and goals are lies, then what can we honestly say about the future of Iraq? Being marginally better than Saddam in some areas, and throwing away the secular government and women's rights in the process, is absolutely no cause to cheer. If Bush and Co. just wanted oil, and a forward military base from which to attack Iran, then the good of Saddam's removal is irrelevant.

In other words, it isn't enough to say "Saddam's gone, so the ends justify the means'...not when so far the end seems to have been the removal a Saddam, with no thought to any future but cheap oil and attacking Iran.

Lol, then address the second paragraph of my post above. You are the one who ignored the relevent portion of my response~[;)]

We're several posts ahead...which part am I ignoring, again?

russ_watters

Jul1-03, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Zero
'We' meaning the majority of the world, not counting Americans who are plugged into the right-wing media. As opposed to their own anti-american medias......what can we honestly say about the future of Iraq? Being marginally better than Saddam in some areas, and throwing away the secular government and women's rights in the process, is absolutely no cause to cheer. If Bush and Co. just wanted oil, and a forward military base from which to attack Iran, then the good of Saddam's removal is irrelevant. Your view of what the future holds for Iraq is different from mine and I would venture to say kat's and a great many others. Bush has no intent to let Iraq turn into a 1980s Iran, nor do we need it for a forward base (we have lots of bases in the region), nor did we attack it for the oil(we could buy the oil whenever we wanted already).

You make unreasonably bad predictions about the ends in order to argue that they are not justified.

Ivan Seeking

Jul1-03, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
nor do we need it for a forward base

This is the one that I wonder about. We sure do now hold a strategic position - right in the middle of the middle east. I have often wondered; given the threat of terrorism, could this be the true motive? We can now strike at will, anytime, anywhere in the middle east.

Zero

Jul1-03, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
As opposed to their own anti-american medias... Your view of what the future holds for Iraq is different from mine and I would venture to say kat's and a great many others. Bush has no intent to let Iraq turn into a 1980s Iran, nor do we need it for a forward base (we have lots of bases in the region), nor did we attack it for the oil(we could buy the oil whenever we wanted already).

You make unreasonably bad predictions about the ends in order to argue that they are not justified.

Uh huh...telling an uncomfortable truth is now defined as 'anti-american'...

And, again, no end justifies lying...especially when the ends themselves were lied about.

kat

Jul1-03, 04:01 PM

Zero-This is the poor ignored paragraph (below), but in re-reading it, it is not as clear as I would like it to be. I would like to point out that it seems to me that much of what Bush has said, and much of what has been quoted are usually only bit's taken without the entire context and hides the ambiguousness of his speach. So, when we are speaking in a legal sense, ambiguous speach in which peaple interpret to the extent they might be inclined to hear, would probably not be accepted in a court of law as fraud, there's a very good article about Bush's speach patterns and ambiguous speach on the spincity site. I don't have the link on the comp. I am on but I will drop the URL here when I am on the other computer.
The other issue that appears to be lost in the leftwing vs. rightwing of it all is the weight that falls upon congress, and in what manner are they guilty when they allow and support presidential actions either directly or indirectly?
Lastly, I really have absolutely zero faith in any media source at this point. If I can't see the full transcript of a conversation, interview or judicial hearing I don't feel I can give it full creditability. I don't care whether the source is right or left they all appear to be on a sensationist journalistic polito opinionitist kick all the while ignoring the truth and facts. So I really am not interested in links that give me little blurbs of he said she said to support an argument. They are just not credible IMO, not the BBC, not the Washington post, not CNN.. none of them appear to be reporting unbiased facts.

Originally posted by kat

I agree in part, but first let's prove that the reasons were "made up" and not either 1. undiscovered and 2. misinformed. Secondly, we need to recognize that Bush and in his administration were not alone, many world leaders and intelligence experts have believed Iraq possessed these types of weapons or was in the process of making them, including Chiraq, Blix, Clinton and numerous Democratic Senators. Also, this is why we have a system of checks and balances, which brings in the complicity of congress....I would also point out that several democratic senators who supported the october bill authorizing the use of force said that they recieved the same security information as Bush and still supported his actions.

kat

Jul1-03, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Your view of what the future holds for Iraq is different from mine and I would venture to say kat's and a great many others. Bush has no intent to let Iraq turn into a 1980s Iran, nor do we need it for a forward base (we have lots of bases in the region), nor did we attack it for the oil(we could buy the oil whenever we wanted already).

You make unreasonably bad predictions about the ends in order to argue that they are not justified.

I don't know that you have my view penned exactly as it is. I don't know what the future holds for Iraq. I don't know Bush's intentions, how could I? I don't believe it's the intent to turn Iraq into a 1980's Iran, I don't see how that is profitable to him or any of his administration, not to mention the American public but I'm not reading the depth of his mind, nor do I fool myself that he is above reproach honest and good hearted. You don't get to the white house or capitol hill and be effective if your pure of heart and soul. So, let's not fool ourselves but let's not proclaim darkness and the worst of evils either. At least not unless your willing to bundle the whole bunch of them up together for the last century and be honest about the whole mess of crookedness.
As for why "we" attacked Iraq, I know what I supported primarily and I could list all of the secondary benefits to the primary. As for the administration, including all of those who voted to support the use of force, be it democratic or republican, I would assume that they also had a long list. I'm also sure that they prioritized importance. So to say AHA! they invaded for this or this or this ignores the reality of how any large organization would approach these sort of things, be it a corporate buyout, hostile takeover or change of regime.
As for the ends and whether they will be justified, it's not yours, mine or Zero's right to usurp the voices of those who pay for the ends to decide. We'll have to wait until they can speak for themselves without the media distortion, without fear of oppression and as that will only come in time saying anything about the ends is just talk for talks sake.

PhysicsRocks88

Jul1-03, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is an if then question. I am not asserting that Bush lied.

If a fraud was perpetrated by Bush and some of his administration, on the people and Congress of this country, and the world in general, should he do time, or should he only be ruined and disgraced politically?

The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

maximus

Jul1-03, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

on the contrary, it is very much open to opinion (four pages of opinions, in fact). it is against the law for the president to lie if that lie was responsible for the needless deaths of many people.

Ivan Seeking

Jul1-03, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

Did you bother to read the criminal code that I posted. It clearly states the the law applies to anyone for any reason.. Please provide some evidence for your position as I did mine.

russ_watters

Jul1-03, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is the one that I wonder about. We sure do now hold a strategic position - right in the middle of the middle east. I have often wondered; given the threat of terrorism, could this be the true motive? We can now strike at will, anytime, anywhere in the middle east. How is that differerent from when we "only" had bases in half a dozen of the other countries in the Middle East?

Not to mention, the majority of the airstrikes into Iraq came from the ocean or Missouri.I don't know that you have my view penned exactly as it is.... I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, kat. I was hoping you'd clarify. [;)] Originally posted by Zero
telling an uncomfortable truth is now defined as 'anti-american'... Are you saying you seriously believe foreign medias don't ever lie or slant their stories to be anti-US? Bagdhad Bob was always truthful? And, again, no end justifies lying.. Really? Haven't you ever take an ethics course? Or even simply THOUGHT about this issue? I can think of quite a few where it is easy to see the ends justifying the means. The typical example is what if you had a Jew in your house in 1938 in Germany and a Nazi knocked on your door asking if you had any Jews in the house? Do you lie and save your friend or tell the truth and send him to his death?

I have a real life example as well - a friend of my mother was taken to a concentration camp at age 12 or so. There they sorted the people by among other things age to determine who went to a work camp and who to a death camp. Being an early bloomer, her parents were able to lie to the Germans and tell them she was 16 (I'm not sure of the exact ages here). She lived instead of dying.

Have any kids? Always tell them the truth? Quantum mechanics? SANTA!?!?

Ivan Seeking

Jul1-03, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
How is that differerent from when we "only" had bases in half a dozen of the other countries in the Middle East?

Not to mention, the majority of the airstrikes into Iraq came from the ocean or Missouri.

Ah, but we sure had to kiss some butts didn't we. And we surely did not get the kind of access desired. Turkey never did let us in. Then we have Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, all unfriendly or potentially so; and of course our friends the Saudis - 15 of which were 9/11 terrorist. If access was not an issue, then why did we spend so much time negotiating with so many countries. Additionally, if some of these guys were to turn on us, access could be much more of an issue. But not anymore. We now have strategic control of the entire middle east. The irony of this is that even I've gotta love it! I may have moral or ethical objections to one thing or another, but it hard to argue with the military position we have; in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Of course, things could still get real ugly...again. And of course, American strength in the Middle East is why we have terrorists in the first place.

russ_watters

Jul1-03, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
And of course, American strength in the Middle East is why we have terrorists in the first place. Everything else was ok except for this. Terrorism far predates any permanent US presence in the Middle East and certainly predates the oft cited presence of the US in Saudia Arabia. The root cause of the Arab hatred for the US is our support for Israel.

Ivan Seeking

Jul1-03, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Everything else was ok except for this. Terrorism far predates any permanent US presence in the Middle East and certainly predates the oft cited presence of the US in Saudia Arabia. The root cause of the Arab hatred for the US is our support for Israel.

This is really what I meant. This, in addition to our [the military industrial complex] arms sales, the artificial borders that resulted from the world wars, and finally, our political role and the influence that we impose on the area. Much of this really goes back to Israel, but our oil interests also go back to the 1920s.

Ivan Seeking

Jul3-03, 01:36 AM

Did anyone watch the Jim Lehrer News hour on PBS tonight? They showed Bush on Polish TV stating that we had found WMDs. This related to the alleged chemical trucks that checked out completely clean. This guy knows no limits! He has no regard for the truth; unlike Clinton.

Zero

Jul4-03, 02:15 PM

Oh, here's something interesting...seems like we can blame Clinton after all...since most of the evidence used about WMD comes from 5 years ago!

you know what to do (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts)

How they go from that to claiming that the WMD were there 5 years later is beyond me...but read it yourself.

Ivan Seeking

Jul5-03, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, here's something interesting...seems like we can blame Clinton after all...since most of the evidence used about WMD comes from 5 years ago!

you know what to do (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts)

How they go from that to claiming that the WMD were there 5 years later is beyond me...but read it yourself.

"There is evidence of exaggeration not just by administration leaders," he said, "but by the intelligence community which are subject to review . . . to see whether they're objective and accurate so that we can in the future rely on our intelligence."

Hmmm. Now who has close ties to the intelligence community? Let me see...could it beeeee....daddy? How conviiieeeeeenent.

All in all, I really thought this report favors Bush more than not. However, it would seem that as a best case scenario, the imminent threat and the WMDs that "we know are around Tikrit" [as per Rummy], were really assumptions based on weak information that is up to ten years old. Gee, I don't feel lied to. IS this a lie? Wait, what is the meaning of IS? Boy politics gets complicated. [:D]

Ganshauk

Jul12-03, 04:33 AM

Clinton lied about his affairs.

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-03, 05:12 AM

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

Actually it has already been established that Bush could be guilty of criminal offenses. Conspiracy and fraud against the US make Clinton look like a boy scout.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

If he knowingly lied, US law calls for up to 20 years of jail time.
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

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Yes the constitution is just another liberal left wing agenda. Considering that you consider fraud and conspiracy by King George as pro-American, I can see why you don’t understand the argument. It is this kind of blind patriotism that defiles the very principles upon which this country was based. Clinton was an embarrasing shame. Bush is dangerous, an insult, and a disgrace. I would rather have a brilliant scoundrel for president than a dimwitted zealot.

russ_watters

Jul12-03, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Actually it has already been established that Bush could be guilty of criminal offenses. "Could?" and established by whom? You?

As I said before, that law is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

Zero

Jul12-03, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Clinton lied about his affairs.

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Thank you for cutting and pasting from the Republican Party website, but we have rules against copyright violations.

The fact that your entire post is completely wrong makes your source pretty obvious.

Ivan Seeking

Jul12-03, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
"Could?" and established by whom? You?

As I said before, that law is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

I know that you never agreed with this, but the law is very clear. Even King George is subject to US law...if he gets caught.

russ_watters

Jul14-03, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I know that you never agreed with this, but the law is very clear. Even King George is subject to US law...if he gets caught. You didn't answer the question. Established by whom? If I don't agree and a lot of other people don't agree, then it is very much still up for debate.

And clear isn't always clear. Its clear that anyone can be tried for fraud for any deception. But clearly that doesn't happen. There is a reason for that.

Also, the law with regard to foreign citizens are more complicated (even worse if they are government officals). Best not to go into that.

Thank you for cutting and pasting from the Republican Party website, but we have rules against copyright violations. Link? Maybe Ganshauk needs to copy my sig.

Ivan Seeking

Jul14-03, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its clear that anyone can be tried for fraud for any deception.

My new signature?

Not for any deception, for committing fraud against the US. If this does not constitute fraud - assuming Bush knowingly lied about the evidence - then what does?

russ_watters

Jul14-03, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If this does not constitute fraud - assuming Bush knowingly lied about the evidence - then what does? Ivan, thats exactly my point: *EVERYTHING* does. So much that its utterly meaningless. If you wanted to put Bush in jail for it, to be consistent you'd also need to arrest all of Congress (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing).

Ivan Seeking

Jul14-03, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, thats exactly my point: *EVERYTHING* does. So much that its utterly meaningless. If you wanted to put Bush in jail for it, to be consistent you'd also need to arrest all of Congress (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing).

First, I am sure that these laws are used to convict people on a regular basis. These ARE the primary US laws relating to Fraud and Conspiracy. Also, people from Watergate did go to jail on just such charges. You make it sound as if there is no law because it is so plainly stated otherwise. If you lie to the government about your taxes you can go to jail. If you lie about your ID you can to jail. Conspiracy to defraud in a money scheme lands you in jail. Presenting false evidence to congress can land you in jail. There is precedence. How many examples should I give?

russ_watters

Jul15-03, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is precedence. How many examples should I give? One would be fine. Can you provide one example of a politician being jailed for something he claimed in a political speach?

Ivan Seeking

Jul15-03, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
One would be fine. Can you provide one example of a politician being jailed for something he claimed in a political speach?

The issue is: False information presented to congress.
Most of the people that went to jail over watergate were prosecuted on similar charges. Nixon resigned because if he hadn't, he stood to bare the full brunt of the law.

Zero

Jul15-03, 12:32 PM

I say we put Bush under oath, and see what he has to say. There are too many questions with poor answers to allow the administration to whitewash it.

zeronem

Jul15-03, 06:47 PM

Russ, I believe Ivan Seeking is trying to get across to you that Nobody is above the Law.

Anyways, I think Mr. Bush and the Intelligence were planning the Iraq Invasion to be more easier then they thought. In fact we even gave the Iraq Soldiers the choice to surrender so we could easily take Saddam out. Lots surrendered and lots didn't. Bush made his motive for taking out Saddam by using the "WMD reason" more then the "Saddam Kills and tortures the Iraq people reason".

I really think we went in there to take Saddam out of the position of Ruling Iraq. Saddam is no different from a Mob Leader. He's no different from a criminal. Who would want a Criminal to have power over a country? I know I wouldn't. Bush talked and talked on the WMD that way he could get Saddam out of power of Iraq. It was the only better reason to use so he could do it.

Bush's true motives were to remove Saddam so the Iraq people would no longer have to suffer. Not because of WMD. Thats only my opinion. I dont know about you, but when I saw all those Iraq people shouting USA and blowing kisses to the American Soldiers on the News, my eyes got a little watery and it takes alot to make my eyes watery, because im a rather cold person.