News Bush & WMD Claim: A Commentary | FindLaw

[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 truly 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 truly 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 truly 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 truly 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 receiving 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 receiving 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.

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 ]

 

[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, that's 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 ]

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.

 

[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 truly 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 truly 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.