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

[kat]

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]

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?!

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 ] 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]

To the Gallows with 41, 43, and their 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]

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 ] 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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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 received the same security information as Bush and still supported his actions.

 

[Zero]

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

 

[Zero]

The administration was surely guilty of misrepresentation. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16274

Enjoy the link.

 

[kat]

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.
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]

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.

 

[kat]

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 irrelevant all in the same post.

You should really try to stay on the topic.

Lol, then address the second paragraph of my post above. You are the one who ignored the relevant portion of my response~

 

[Zero]

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 irrelevant 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 relevant portion of my response~

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

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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]

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]

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 received the same security information as Bush and still supported his actions.

 

[kat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 got to 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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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!

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.