Bush and the WMD claim

  • #76
238
1
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 ]
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:smile: 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:smile: (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.
 
  • #77
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
238
1
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.
 
  • #79
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.
 
  • #80
kat
26
0
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?
 
  • #81
Zero
Originally posted by kat
Are you cutting and pasting this on every thread?
I think it bears repeating, don't you?
 
  • #82
russ_watters
Mentor
19,810
6,211
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.
 
  • #83
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
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.
 
  • #85
238
1
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).
 
  • #86
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
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.
 

Related Threads on Bush and the WMD claim

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
82
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Top