News Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[Evo]

Ok people, this is all about your personal opinions. If you can't realize that and keep your posts civil, I will lock the thread.

 

[Informal Logic]

Let's try a more productive tact. Are you suggesting it was proper to impeach President Clinton?

Rev Prez

The common element in impeachments of Nixon and Clinton is that they lied. We as Americans need to be consistent in what is right and wrong, and how we apply justice in our country.

If you ask a Republican if Clinton should have been impeached, of course they will say yes. If you ask Democrats whether Clinton should have been impeached, they will say yes too, because he lied (not because he was unfaithful in his personal relationship).

The question in the poll specifically asks whether Bush should be impeached if it is proven that he lied. That 50% say 'no' is disturbing, and we know very well who these people are. They are Republicans who support Bush. They are hypocrites, especially the fundamentalists who purport 'values' and 'morals' as if they have a clue what these things mean.

If we take this a step further, one president lied about an extra-marital affair, which had no impact on Americans, while the other president lied about going into war, with a massive impact on Americans. Justification for the lies (the end justifies the means) is all the more disconcerting. In our society people no longer take responsibility for their actions, and have become quite good at rationalizing behavior.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The common element in impeachments of Nixon and Clinton is that they lied. We as Americans need to be consistent in what is right and wrong, and how we apply justice in our country.

If you ask a Republican if Clinton should have been impeached, of course they will say yes. If you ask Democrats whether Clinton should have been impeached, they will say yes too, because he lied (not because he was unfaithful in his personal relationship).

The question in the poll specifically asks whether Bush should be impeached if it is proven that he lied. That 50% say 'no' is disturbing, and we know very well who these people are. They are Republicans who support Bush. They are hypocrites, especially the fundamentalists who purport 'values' and 'morals' as if they have a clue what these things mean.

If we take this a step further, one president lied about an extra-marital affair, which had no impact on Americans, while the other president lied about going into war, with a massive impact on Americans. Justification for the lies (the end justifies the means) is all the more disconcerting. In our society people no longer take responsibility for their actions, and have become quite good at rationalizing behavior.

No, lying to the public is not grounds for impeachment, that happens all the time! Who would be naive enough to think that politicians don't lie?

What happened with Clinton is he was accused (but not convicted of) perjury and obstructing justice which are felonies, and he was impeached. Nixon was accused (but not convicted) of obstructing justice, which is a felony (but Nixon was actually not impeached - although had he stuck around, he would have been). Bush has not done either in the claims leading up to the war on Iraq, and I doubt that given the intelligence supported by other countries at that time (including the UK, Germany and Russia) that there could even be a legal case made at all.

Neither Clinton nor Nixon's impeachments were confirmed (that is, resulting in them being thrown out of office). Nixon resigned before he was even impeached, Clinton did not - Clinton stayed in office even after being impeached.

Here is the definition of impeachment in the USA law:

In the United States impeachment can occur both at the federal and state level. At the federal level it can apply only to those who have allegedly committed "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

It is also highly unlikely that any US president will ever be impeached over something deemed a national security issue. Once an executive order specifies a national security action, which in this case it was the execute order EO12938 issued by Bill Clinton, the president has the authority to act on it regardless of false intelligence:

http://www.uhuh.com/laws/eo12938.htm

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act, as amended (22 U.S.C.

2751 et seq.), Executive Orders Nos. 12851 and 12924, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") and of the means of delivering such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

this state of national emergency has never been revoked.

Sec. 7. Implementation. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Commerce are hereby authorized and directed to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. These actions, and in particular those in sections 4 and 5 of this order, shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and, as appropriate, other agency heads and shall be implemented in accordance with procedures established pursuant to Executive Order No. 12851.

EO 12851 in turn refers to the National Defense Authorization Act.

Clinton testified the following before congress:

The United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq in response to Iraq's illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait, a clear act of brutal aggression. The United States, together with the international community, is maintaining economic sanctions against Iraq because the Iraqi regime has failed to comply fully with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Security Council resolutions on Iraq call for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi recognition of Kuwait and the inviolability of the Iraq -Kuwait boundary, the release of Kuwaiti and other third-country nationals, compensation for victims of Iraqi aggression, long-term monitoring of weapons of mass destruction capabilities, the return of Kuwaiti assets stolen during Iraq's illegal occupation of Kuwait, renunciation of terrorism, an end to internal Iraqi repression of its own civilian population, and the facilitation of access of international relief organizations to all those in need in all parts of Iraq . Seven years after the invasion, a pattern of defiance persists: a refusal to account for missing Kuwaiti detainees; failure to return Kuwaiti property worth millions of dollars, including military equipment that was used by Iraq in its movement of troops to the Kuwaiti border in October 1994; sponsorship of assassinations in Lebanon and in northern Iraq ; incomplete declarations to weapons instructors and refusal of unimpeded access by these inspectors; and ongoing widespread human rights violations. As a result, the U.N. sanctions remain in place; the United States will continue to enforce those sanctions under domestic authority.

The Baghdad government continues to violate basic human rights of its own citizens through the systematic repression of minorities and denial of humanitarian assistance. The Government of Iraq has repeatedly said it will not be bound by UNSCR 668. The Iraqi military routinely harasses residents of the north, and has attempted to `Arabize' the Kurdish, Turcomen, and Assyrian areas in the north. Iraq has not relented in its artillery attacks against civilian population centers in the south, or in its burning and draining operations in the southern marshes, which have forced thousands to flee to neighboring states.

The policies and actions of the Saddam Hussein regime continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security. The U.N. resolutions affirm that the Security Council must be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in judging its compliance with sanctions. Because of Iraq's failure to comply fully with these resolutions, the United States will continue to apply economic sanctions to deter it from threatening peace and stability in the region.

William J. Clinton.

The White House, July 31, 1997.

 

[Art]

No, lying to the public is not grounds for impeachment, that happens all the time! Who would be naive enough to think that politicians don't lie?

That is true but in the UK if the prime minister lied to parliament and was later found out he'd be out on his ear immediately. Is there a similar convention in the US if the president lies to congress?

 

[Rev Prez]

The common element in impeachments of Nixon and Clinton is that they lied.

The common legal thread in the near-impeachment of Nixon and the successful one of Clinton is that there was probable cause to believe they'd committed crimes worthy of removal from office. If I were as cynical as most posters here, lying wouldn't be worth a damn in separating good presidents from bad.

We as Americans need to be consistent in what is right and wrong, and how we apply justice in our country.

Why?

If you ask a Republican if Clinton should have been impeached, of course they will say yes. If you ask Democrats whether Clinton should have been impeached, they will say yes too, because he lied (not because he was unfaithful in his personal relationship).

I didn't ask that. I asked you.

Rev Prez

 

[SOS2008]

As usual the Bushies rush to muddle the point either with "well he did it too" or endlessly debating semantics (as you are so good at rationalizing everything). Perjury is lying, and perjury (or lying) constituted obstruction of justice. Most importantly, let's not forget this:

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, February 12) -- The Senate acquitted President Bill Clinton Friday of both articles of impeachment. The perjury charge was defeated with 55 "not guilty" votes and 45 "guilty" votes. On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

In any event, you can read all the details to your hearts desire here: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/impeach.html

So back to the point. If it is proven that Bush lied about reasons for going to war in Iraq, why shouldn't he be impeached? Isn't he responsible for sending American soldiers to die, and if he did so fraudulently, isn't this a crime far more serious than having sex with some woman?

Also, I haven't heard one single Bushie defend the recent speech and multiple links between 9-11 and Iraq. Oh come on now, where are your justifications for his continued lies in this matter?

 

[The Smoking Man]

The policies and actions of the Saddam Hussein regime continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security. The U.N. resolutions affirm that the Security Council must be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in judging its compliance with sanctions. Because of Iraq's failure to comply fully with these resolutions, the United States will continue to apply economic sanctions to deter it from threatening peace and stability in the region.

William J. Clinton.

The White House, July 31, 1997.

Cool.

You know I hear this an awful lot from republicans in the USA when trying to deflect from what Bush has done.

There is just one problem ... Clinton never invaded.

Have you never heard the term 'Sabre Rattling' before?

I hear it from the same people who talk about how China is like the USA with regard to Taiwan ... Well, they are in a Clintonesque way.

The big difference in the world of politics are the 'words' that are used to bring people to the table to negotiate.

Even the 'pea brained' Kim Jong Il uses this technique.

In fact, the whole nuclear arms race is based on it.

The big difference between Clinton, Kim, Hu, Iran et al and Bush?:

Bush used the residual emotion left over from 9/11 to convince the American people to actually go the extra step and attack.

That is the content of the Downing Street Memo.

I think we all know that wanting to commit murder, talking about committing murder are pretty common even in most of our personal lives. Many of us think about it in reference to our boss, noisy neigbour etc. And yet nobody has gone to jail for it.

It's when you cross the line to action that makes the difference and also makes the words said beforehand evidence in the trial.

You can write all you want about Clinton and quote him as much as you want.

The thing is, he never struck out or acted with agression against Iraq. He said a lot of things and did some 'heavy negotiating'.

Bush invented evidence, waved it in front of the world to create a conspiracy of violence and then attacked. These were the same actions that were used in Tokyo to try and sentence General Tojo to death.

The only thing I still see Clinton guilty of is 'telling a porky about a BJ'.

Let's get some perspective here ... lying about oral sex ... all out war with Iraq.

 

[Hurkyl]

all out war with Iraq

All out war?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The only thing I still see Clinton guilty of is 'telling a porky about a BJ'.

lol

 

[2CentsWorth]

That is true but in the UK if the prime minister lied to parliament and was later found out he'd be out on his ear immediately. Is there a similar convention in the US if the president lies to congress?

What would be interesting is if Bush was tried in a world court for war crimes. After all, impeachment would only address damage done to our own country, but what about the innocent people of Iraq?

And speaking of Bush lies and trials...

Iraqi minister: Saddam's trial will be over by year's end
BRUSSELS (AP) — Iraq's justice minister on Tuesday accused the United States of trying to delay Iraqi efforts to interrogate Saddam Hussein, saying "it seems there are lots of secrets they want to hide."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-21-saddam_x.htm

 

[Mercator]

All out war?

Congratulations, TSM, Hurkyl seems to agree, only he thinks it's not "all out war" , so maybe just half a war.

 

[Art]

Congratulations, TSM, Hurkyl seems to agree, only he thinks it's not "all out war" , so maybe just half a war.

I think it's his tunnel vision restricts his field of view so he can't see it 'all'

 

[The Smoking Man]

All out war?

Yes, I believe that even in America, when you launch missiles, invade with ground forces use deck guns from your navy, straff and bomb from the air plus declare war from the White House AND get Congress to agree ... Yes, this is All out war?

What do you define as All out war?

 

[The Smoking Man]

lol

Nice rebuttal. Can I use that?

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Nice rebuttal. Can I use that?

oh, that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, i just thought your comment was funny.

 

[Hurkyl]

What do you define as All out war?

I'm not sure, it's still a nebulous concept in my head. I never got the impression from media reports that the US was throwing everything it had at anything that moved.

 

[SOS2008]

I'm not sure, it's still a nebulous concept in my head. I never got the impression from media reports that the US was throwing everything it had at anything that moved.

Two Years Later, Iraq War Drains Military
Heavy Demands Offset Combat Experience

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page A01

Two years after the United States launched a war in Iraq with a crushing display of power, a guerrilla conflict is grinding away at the resources of the U.S. military and casting uncertainty over the fitness of the all-volunteer force, according to senior military leaders, lawmakers and defense experts.

The unexpectedly heavy demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48306-2005Mar18.html

And many more sources on this topic if you care to research it...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

That is true but in the UK if the prime minister lied to parliament and was later found out he'd be out on his ear immediately. Is there a similar convention in the US if the president lies to congress?

If the president lies before congress while under oath than that would be perjury, a felony, and therefore an indictable+impeachable offense.

But if the president were to exaggerate a threat, it wouldn't necessarily be impeachable, and it wouldn't be the first time either. Take the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for instance: Johnson claimed that US ships were fired upon by N.Vietnamese (it turns out that it didn't really happen this way - the N.Vietnamese ships were purposefully provoked in order give the Johnson administration the moral highground for escalating the conflict, as later revealed in the Pentagon Papers).

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gives the president authority, as command in chief, to take any military actions that the president deems necessary at that time. Then at a later date the president has to justify it before congress. According to the US Constitution, only congress has the ability to make war - as an actual declared state - but the president has the right to unilaterally take military action, even if it is technically not a state of war.

I do not think that Bush lied, but perhaps exaggerated the situation - the reason stated was WMD, which i do not believe was a lie because that was a small part of it. The other parts (need for democracy in the middle east, a US military presence since we were kicked out of Saudi arabia, the ability to sandwich Iran between US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, control of oil, etc.) were not explained to the public. This WMD thing was not a far stretch, given that Clinton had laid the path of associating Iraq with WMD, as cited in my previous post, and also because Saddam had actually used chemical weapons in the past. In any case, as CIC he had the right to do so, and even if the story didn't hold water the way that it was presented to the public it is doubtful if congress would ever take adverse action against a president for doing so.

From wikipedia:

Thus, as time goes by, whether the original pretext for going to war was true or not is thus long forgotten. Even so, under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the American courts, the president is not ultra vires in so acting - because of the "political questions doctrine." The "political questions doctrine" developed in American courts provides that any issue which the courts deem "political" lie outside the jurisdiction of the American courts, and hence, outside the purview of the United States Constitution (since the courts, under the separation of powers, interpret the Constitution).

As a result, neither president Johnson in Vietnam, nor the current president George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq were ultra vires in terms of the United States Constitution, nor were they acting illegally. Whether waging war is moral or not is, of course, outside the purview of law.

 

[The Smoking Man]

oh, that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, i just thought your comment was funny.

I'm sure the people of Iraq think it is hillarious too.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm not sure, it's still a nebulous concept in my head. I never got the impression from media reports that the US was throwing everything it had at anything that moved.

YOU RAN OUT OF BULLETS.

I am also sure that from watching most US news services taht any impression you were given was 'the truth' as far as they wanted you to know it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

As a result, neither president Johnson in Vietnam, nor the current president George W. Bush in his invasion of Iraq were ultra vires in terms of the United States Constitution, nor were they acting illegally. Whether waging war is moral or not is, of course, outside the purview of law.

If you read the Kellogg-Bernier Pact of 1928, the act of waging war is a 'crime against peace' and the foundation of the charges against Class A War Criminals.

Defence is supposed to be the only excuse for waging a war ... ie. it is illegal to start a war but perfectly legal to finish one.

So yes ... as soon as Bush took a left outside of Afghanistan, he officially committed a crime against peace becasue he waged war without sanction of the United Nations.

Oh, and look who is responsible for Kellogg-Bernier and the fact that the thing is, according to article 3, administered from Washington, DC.

 

[Hurkyl]

YOU RAN OUT OF BULLETS.

Ah yes, a good example: the U.S. went in without even sending all possible supplies to the front.

I am also sure that from watching most US news services taht any impression you were given was 'the truth' as far as they wanted you to know it.

I wouldn't know: I'm pretty sure I never saw anything about it on US news channels.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

So yes ... as soon as Bush took a left outside of Afghanistan, he officially committed a crime against peace becasue he waged war without sanction of the United Nations

only according to you, my friend. US law is not superceded by UN law, and according to US law there was no such crime committed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Two years after the United States launched a war in Iraq with a crushing display of power

Making hundreds of precision strikes in rapid succession would be a crushing display of power. So would making hundreds of strip bombing runs in rapid succession.

I get the impression that the former was the typical mode of operation, while the latter would be something I'd think would be closer to an all-out war.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

If you read the Kellogg-Bernier Pact of 1928, the act of waging war is a 'crime against peace' and the foundation of the charges against Class A War Criminals.

then perhaps you can post the relevant parts yourself, because it cannot find any such thing called the "Kellogg-Bernier Pact".

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

oh, that wasn't meant to be a rebuttal, i just thought your comment was funny.

I'm sure the people of Iraq think it is hillarious too.

what? that "clinton told a porky about a bj?" i think that you may be confused.

 

[The Smoking Man]

what? that "clinton told a porky about a bj?" i think that you may be confused.

You're right ... apologies ... that was uncalled for on my part.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Ah yes, a good example: the U.S. went in without even sending all possible supplies to the front.




I wouldn't know: I'm pretty sure I never saw anything about it on US news channels.

Ummm ... No they had to search for a supplier of bullets.

They even had a debate about if it was ethical to use bullets from Israel if you remember.

They actually used all their supplies.

 

[The Smoking Man]

only according to you, my friend. US law is not superceded by UN law, and according to US law there was no such crime committed.

That is because the USA has been disengenuous with everything they have signed as far as international treaties.

They are perfectly happy to submit the rest of the world to war crimes trials. They will, in fact drop everyone in front of a tribunal.

However, when it comes to themselves, they refuse to recognize the Geneva conventions, the authority of the world court and have even gone as far as applying for official exemption for all US citizens.

 

[The Smoking Man]

then perhaps you can post the relevant parts yourself, because it cannot find any such thing called the "Kellogg-Bernier Pact".

Damn, I am getting really bad posting these little posts between meetings what I meant was Kellogg-Briand Pact 1928

 

[Burnsys]

That is because the USA has been disengenuous with everything they have signed as far as international treaties.

They are perfectly happy to submit the rest of the world to war crimes trials. They will, in fact drop everyone in front of a tribunal.

However, when it comes to themselves, they refuse to recognize the Geneva conventions, the authority of the world court and have even gone as far as applying for official exemption for all US citizens.

Here in latin america US has asked to all the countries for inmunity for their troops, and that their troop will not be judged in the international court... of course lot of countrys gave america imunity for his troops...

No i ask, why does US look for imunity for his troops, are they planing to do somenthing ilegal?, and what is more... what the hell are they doing here? opening military bases in every country of latin america...

 

[2CentsWorth]

That is because the USA has been disengenuous with everything they have signed as far as international treaties.

They are perfectly happy to submit the rest of the world to war crimes trials. They will, in fact drop everyone in front of a tribunal.

However, when it comes to themselves, they refuse to recognize the Geneva conventions, the authority of the world court and have even gone as far as applying for official exemption for all US citizens.

Here in latin america US has asked to all the countries for inmunity for their troops, and that their troop will not be judged in the international court... of course lot of countrys gave america imunity for his troops...

No i ask, why does US look for imunity for his troops, are they planing to do somenthing ilegal?, and what is more... what the hell are they doing here? opening military bases in every country of latin america...

Hmm... These kinds of things couldn't be reasons for why people in other parts of the world dislike the US. Nah, it's just jealousy.