Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

If he lied, should Bush do time?

Poll closed Jul 21, 2003.
  1. Go directly to jail.

    9 vote(s)
    56.3%
  2. Only ruined and disgraced

    5 vote(s)
    31.3%
  3. Other. Please explain

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
  1. Jun 21, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 21, 2003 #2
    Clinton lied. Should he go to jail? And in his case it's not an "if". It's a fact.

    BTW I thought Bush was already ruined and disgraced politically.
     
  4. Jun 21, 2003 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2003
  5. Jun 21, 2003 #4

    kat

    User Avatar

    Which lies are you two talking about? The sex issues or the more relevant Kosovo?
     
  6. Jun 21, 2003 #5
    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.
     
  7. Jun 21, 2003 #6
    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'.
     
  8. Jun 21, 2003 #7

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  9. Jun 21, 2003 #8
    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?
     
  10. Jun 21, 2003 #9
    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?
     
  11. Jun 21, 2003 #10

    kat

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  12. Jun 21, 2003 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Could you fill us in? I for one am interested.
     
  13. Jun 21, 2003 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Jun 21, 2003 #13
    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.
     
  15. Jun 22, 2003 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    .

    I did not.
     
  16. Jun 22, 2003 #15

    jb

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  17. Jun 22, 2003 #16

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2003
  18. Jun 23, 2003 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I voted for "other" since its a loaded question. You assume that a lie = fraud.
     
  19. Jun 23, 2003 #18
    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"?
     
  20. Jun 24, 2003 #19

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    *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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2003
  21. Jun 24, 2003 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: If Bush knowingly lied about WMDs, should he go to jail?
  1. Another Bush lie (Replies: 13)

Loading...