News Bush & WMD Claim: A Commentary | FindLaw

[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.