The Smoking Gun That Could Lead To Bush's Impeachment

[Malachi151]

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/06/13_smokinggun.html

If high-ranking intelligence officials are to be believed, there is a smoking gun which strongly suggests that George Bush should be impeached for lying to the American people in order to generate support and justification for war. Everyone should be clear about what it is. There is much to criticize about how the Bush Administration lied and manipulated public opinion. But right now the single most damaging piece of evidence in the case against Bush is the forged letter proffered as evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium for use in nuclear weapons, which Bush touted in his State of the Union speech. It now appears that not only was the document a forgery, it is almost inconceivable that Bush and his cronies didn't know it was a forgery before they presented it to the American people and the world as evidence –- a clearly impeachable offense.

[corplinx]

This is the lamest of the lame. This was all gone through back when it was originally discovered the document was a fake months ago. It wasn't confirmed to be a forgery until after the state of the union. I believe the document was handed over from a foreign intelligence agency to ours.


I'm not sure why people are rehashing this now. I guess its the best conspiracy they can come up with.

[Monketey Ghost]

IIRC, US intel missed the fact that it was a forgery, and UN folks discovered that it was so. The idea that our intel would miss it is suspicious.

But it isn't going to matter. W is a popular president who took us to an easily won war, and he will never be impeached. In fact the idea that he might be is laughable.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by No Answers
IIRC, US intel missed the fact that it was a forgery, and UN folks discovered that it was so. The idea that our intel would miss it is suspicious.

But it isn't going to matter. W is a popular president who took us to an easily won war, and he will never be impeached. In fact the idea that he might be is laughable.

I agree with that.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is the lamest of the lame. This was all gone through back when it was originally discovered the document was a fake months ago. It wasn't confirmed to be a forgery until after the state of the union. I believe the document was handed over from a foreign intelligence agency to ours.


I'm not sure why people are rehashing this now. I guess its the best conspiracy they can come up with.
Don't you question why the greatest security agency in the world couldn't/didn't determine whether the document was valid?
If they couldn't they're incompetent. If they didn't they're malicious.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by subgenius

Don't you question why the greatest security agency in the world couldn't/didn't determine whether the document was valid?
If they couldn't they're incompetent. If they didn't they're malicious.

Yes, we all know that if an intelligence agency is not correct 100% of the time, it must be either incompetent or malicious...

[reprise]

I wish someone would give Bush a blow job so that we could at least sit around accusing him of something interesting.

[Gem]

But if it was a forgery, who would forge it? National Iraqi Congress, they sure had a motive.

But it's all speculation.

Gem

[Tony]

You must really want people to see that BBC program reprise. :)

BTW, did you see "Finding Nemo", how accurate was the Sydney skyline in that movie?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Yes, we all know that if an intelligence agency is not correct 100% of the time, it must be either incompetent or malicious...

This was not a minor piece of data. This was the justification for war. See the difference?
I didn't say they had to be or possibly could be 100% correct on everything.
This was a basis for war. Not just policy.
Clear on the concept?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Malachi151

There is much to criticize about how the Bush Administration lied and manipulated public opinion.


That is what politicans do - lie and manipulate public opinion. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

By the way, lying to the public is not an impeachable offense.

Get over it.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Tony
You must really want people to see that BBC program reprise. :)

BTW, did you see "Finding Nemo", how accurate was the Sydney skyline in that movie?

Haven't seen "Finding Nemo", Tony - and I thought putting a link to info about the programme in my sig was a better option than bumping the thread about it. :) Besides, some people never read the P&CE forum.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Yes, we all know that if an intelligence agency is not correct 100% of the time, it must be either incompetent or malicious...

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

[subgenius]

Originally posted by No Answers


Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Do not attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity
-H.L Mencken

Love that quote. But I take no comfort in assuming the CIA is stupid.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by subgenius


Do not attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity
-H.L Mencken

Love that quote. But I take no comfort in assuming the CIA is stupid.

Of course, it you may not have to assume this. There is reason to believe the administration (at least the vice-president) knew it was a fake already in Feb 2002. OTOH, Condy Rice claims that intelligence approved the statements the president made, so who knows what level of distraction/deceit/incompetence is involved.

Didn't Bush just say that "Britain has a document that says the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium"? If so, I guess it's true. Of course, he forgot to mention that the document is a known forgery, but hey, they did have a document!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by reprise
I wish someone would give Bush a blow job so that we could at least sit around accusing him of something interesting.

You mean, like lying under oath?

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You mean, like lying under oath?

Of course, if you were in the same position, you'd tell the embarrassing truth about a sexual act that was nobody else's business. Right?

[Tony]

Originally posted by No Answers


Of course, if you were in the same position, you'd tell the embarrassing truth about a sexual act that was nobody else's business. Right?


Probably, after learning all the facts, I realized the conservatives acted in a shameful behavior.

But I wouldn’t even cheat in the first place. Bill Clinton was a victim of his own transgressions and the people out to get him exploited it.

[Fade]

Originally posted by No Answers


Of course, if you were in the same position, you'd tell the embarrassing truth about a sexual act that was nobody else's business. Right?

Of course. But when it comes to lying 'bout a dern lil' piece of paper that will wind up killing thousands of people for no darn reason, well shuck.. don't need to be tellin' no TRUTH then do ya?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by No Answers

Of course, if you were in the same position, you'd tell the embarrassing truth about a sexual act that was nobody else's business. Right?

Under oath, in a court of law?? You bet I'd tell the truth...but being the kind of man I am, I wouldn't have cheated on my wife in the first place. My character and honor are too important to me.

Besides, Slick Willie didn't refuse to answer on the grounds that his private life should remain private. That I could have respected...

Instead he lied...

For that that he was impeached and disbarred.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Under oath, in a court of law?? You bet I'd tell the truth...but being the kind of man I am, I wouldn't have cheated on my wife in the first place. My character and honor are too important to me.

Besides, Slick Willie didn't refuse to answer on the grounds that his private life should remain private. That I could have respected...

Instead he lied...

For that that he was impeached and disbarred.

Was Clinton disbarred? I know people were trying, I don't remember the outcome.

I'll mildly disagree about the lying part. He tried very hard not to lie under oath without actually revealing the truth. I have my doubts about how well that succeeded.

In regards to Bush, I have almost no doubt that Bush believed every single thing he said. Now, whether or not what he believes is actually true...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Was Clinton disbarred? I know people were trying, I don't remember the outcome.

I'll mildly disagree about the lying part. He tried very hard not to lie under oath without actually revealing the truth. I have my doubts about how well that succeeded.

In regards to Bush, I have almost no doubt that Bush believed every single thing he said. Now, whether or not what he believes is actually true...

Clinton disbarred in Arkansas and by SCOTUS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/10/01/politics/main313109.shtml)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

I'll mildly disagree about the lying part. He tried very hard not to lie under oath without actually revealing the truth. I have my doubts about how well that succeeded.

I may be wrong, but doesn't the oath one takes in court say to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth???

[subgenius]

Going to war based on forged documents is more detrimental to the country than perjury regarding a private consensual act.

[Blue Monk]

Has anyone heard Hillary Clinton speak on this matter, namely the perceived discrepencies between what we were told and what has been found?

I heard her address it in a recent interview and she was quite charitable toward Bush on this matter.

According to her, the information being relayed by the Bush administration is entirely consistent with the information they were receiving from the intelligence community under the Clinton administration.

She also warned against people rushing to judgment on the matter as any WMD would likely be well concealed and may not turn up for a while.

She said that she backed the Senate resolution against Iraq based largely on the fact that most of what was being presented by the Bush administration as evidence of WMD in Iraq was the same or similar to what they were shown in the Clinton administration.

She is under the opinion that the information they were provided by the Bush administration does indeed accurately reflect the information provided by the intelligence community and that if in the end this proves inaccurate she feels it is far more likely that the fault lies, not with the Bush administration, but rather the intelligence community.

As she put it, a president can only act on the information he or she is given and that if the president cannot have 100% confidence in his intelligence gathering apparatus then we are facing a serious problem indeed.

But as she repeatedly stated, people should reserve judgment until all of the facts are in and the fact that no WMD have yet been found that is certainly no guarantee that they will not eventually surface.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Going to war based on forged documents is more detrimental to the country than perjury regarding a private consensual act.

If you put the word "Knowingly" at the beginning of your statement above, then yeah...

As it stands now though, GWB hasn't committed an impeachable offense.

I'll be calling for his impeachment along with the rest if evidence, not mere speculation, of an impeachable offense is ever forthcoming...

[DavidJames]

I don't believe anything will ever come of this because:
1) The public won't demand it, because "we won" and
2) GWB would never make the same mistakes as Clinton, i.e. allow Ashcroft to appoint a special prosecutor, much less one from the other party. My goodness, the Repub's won't even agree to a hearing. After all, we're only talking war, it's not like it's a failed land deal :rolleyes:

Edit for the inevitable reaction... I'm not supporting a special prosecutor or calling for impeachment or saying Bush lied (yet). I'm still waiting and hoping the truth, whatever it is, become known.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


If you put the word "Knowingly" at the beginning of your statement above, then yeah...

As it stands now though, GWB hasn't committed an impeachable offense.

I'll be calling for his impeachment along with the rest if evidence, not mere speculation, of an impeachable offense is ever forthcoming...
It was a hypothetical.

[Landis]

Whether Bush and his fellow co-conspirator's (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, et al) lied to the Congress and the American People about WMD in Iraq is currently under limited congressional investigation. I say, let's have a public investigation complete with an Independent Prosecutor. Let's put Bush under Oath and ask him "Did you lie about the WMDs?" If he answers no and later evidence shows him to be lying the we can impeach him. If he answer's no and the evidence clears him, then we can move on to more important issues like the economy. Of course there is one more option, he could answer "yes" I lied about WMD's. In that case, we can't impeach him but we can throw him out of office in the next election.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Landis
Whether Bush and his fellow co-conspirator's (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, et al) lied to the Congress and the American People about WMD in Iraq is currently under limited congressional investigation. I say, let's have a public investigation complete with an Independent Prosecutor. Let's put Bush under Oath and ask him "Did you lie about the WMDs?" If he answers no and later evidence shows him to be lying the we can impeach him. If he answer's no and the evidence clears him, then we can move on to more important issues like the economy. Of course there is one more option, he could answer "yes" I lied about WMD's. In that case, we can't impeach him but we can throw him out of office in the next election.
Who could object to that?
If a president can be forced to answer questions under oath while in office regarding a private consensual act, then surely this is fair.
(Welcome to the Forum.)

[jj]

Originally posted by No Answers
IIRC, US intel missed the fact that it was a forgery, and UN folks discovered that it was so. The idea that our intel would miss it is suspicious.

But it isn't going to matter. W is a popular president who took us to an easily won war, and he will never be impeached. In fact the idea that he might be is laughable.

We haven't won yet.

We won't have won until a stable, nonrepressive government is in place, and is not constantly upset by Saddamn and his Baathists.

You may be right about 'W', but he's clearly lied more and worse than Mr. Bill ever did.

[Crossbow]

As much as I opposed the recent war, I really do not think any elected official (President or otherwise) will get impeached for it. In fact, I doubt that any civil servant or staff member will even get fired for their roles in passing on data that they knew to be 'dubious', 'uncorroborated', 'biased', or some other such qualifier.

The fact that really matters is that the Congressional resolution regarding Iraq was widely supported by both parties. Therefore if Bush gets into trouble, then trouble will soon follow in Congress, and of course, no one in Congress wants that.

[Landis]

"The fact that really matters is that the Congressional resolution regarding Iraq was widely supported by both parties. Therefore if Bush gets into trouble, then trouble will soon follow in Congress, and of course, no one in Congress wants that."


That's a good point. Most of the Democrat's including the Democratic Leadership were eager to jump on Bush's war wagon. They certainly shot themselves in the foot when it comes to criticizing the President now. If Bush should have known the information he was being fed was not truthful or accurate, then maybe many of the Democrat's in Congress should have known and spoke up before they voted to go to war.

[DavidJames]

" Most of the Democrat's including the Democratic Leadership were eager to jump on Bush's war wagon. They certainly shot themselves in the foot when it comes to criticizing the President now. If Bush should have known the information he was being fed was not truthful or accurate, then maybe many of the Democrat's in Congress should have known and spoke up before they voted to go to war."

Agreed, but two points.
1) I'm sure even those that did have doubts felt it would be political suicide to oppose a war supported by so many of their constituents.
2) It will not be political suicide to speak up if it turns out the administration relied information it knew was wrong or forged. Considering how tight lipped the Bush administration is, I would be surprised if any Democrats were brought into the loop about the finer details of the intel. There is a big difference between "should have known" and did know. That's why an inquiry needs to occur.

[subgenius]

Column on the subject by my senator:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0306/16/a13-192834.htm

Has to do with our own conflicting intelligence, not just forged documents.

"portions of a classified Defense Intelligence Agency document from September of 2002 were leaked and later declassified. That document indicated much less certainty about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons. The report stated "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

...and....


Vice President Dick Cheney said last September that we had "absolute certainty" that Iraq was trying to import aluminum tubes for the purpose of enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. But it now appears that there was, in fact, disagreement within our own intelligence community about the purpose of such tubes.

See, now, that there is a bold faced lie. There was not "absolute certainty."

[DavidJames]

How on earth could anyone disagree with Levin's conclusion to have a "bipartisan inquiry".

I expect we will find out shortly on this thread.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by DavidJames
How on earth could anyone disagree with Levin's conclusion to have a "bipartisan inquiry".

I expect we will find out shortly on this thread.
Well "they" opposed an investigation into 9/11, so.....
And, (rhetorical, don't want to hijack the thread) whatever happened to that commission?

[subgenius]

From the Levin article:

"International support for taking future military action, particularly pre-emptive action, will depend on the extent to which the evidence the United States offers to back up its action is seen by the world as reliable and trustworthy."

[corplinx]

Originally posted by No Answers


Of course, if you were in the same position, you'd tell the embarrassing truth about a sexual act that was nobody else's business. Right?

You mean if I had a law degree, was the president of the united states, if anything should be held to a higher perjury standard, and lied about an important piece of the prosecution trying to establish your character in a sexual related case? Would I lie in a US court? Would I betray the very system that I stand for?

No.

Personally, I find your "you would do it too" to be the lamest form of rationalization. Clinton's legacy will include not micromanaging the economy and letting it grow on its own, starting the restructure of the big army from a sledgehammer to a scalpel, and signing the good parts of the contract with america. Clinton doesn't need anyone to defend him for his perjury, especially if they are going to do it poorly.

[Landis]

"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.

It is doubtful there will ever be any kind of public investigation of the Bush administration. His high powered media relations team will see to that. They are very skilled at deflecting criticism of the president by going on the attack. Obviously, they coached him on how to administer an ad hominem attack by lableling all those who would even suggest at an inquiry as revisionist historians. Now, the right wing lackeys will run with this and dismiss all criticism as "revisionist" end of debate!

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx

...
Clinton doesn't need anyone to defend him for his perjury, especially if they are going to do it poorly.
1) When your car mechanic lies to you about sex, it doesn't mean he is not a good car mechanic.

2) When your car mechanic lies to you about car repairs, it means that he is not a good car mechanic.

1), applies to Clinton:

his lie didn't affect his work;

2), applies to Bush:

his lie affects his work;
Bush used in Congress a forged document about ties between Niger and Iraq in the Iraqi's nuclear program;
based on Bush's forged document, U.S. wars against Iraq, kills and maims thousands and wastes billions of U.S. tax money.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ion

1) When your car mechanic lies to you about sex, it doesn't mean he is not a good car mechanic.

2) When your car mechanic lies to you about car repairs, it means that he is not a good car mechanic.

1), applies to Clinton:

his lie didn't affect his work;

2), applies to Bush:

his lie affects his work;
Bush used in Congress a forged document about ties between Niger and Iraq in the Iraqi's nuclear program;
based on Bush's forged document, U.S. wars against Iraq, kills and maims thousands and wastes billions of U.S. tax money.

Damn good point.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by corplinx



Personally, I find your "you would do it too" to be the lamest form of rationalization.

Alright then. I've heard plenty of self-righteous "I would never have taken the blowjob" and "I would never lie under oath" statements. Fair enough. However, it's pretty easy to say you'd never lie under oath when you haven't been confronted with the situation.

But if it were me, anyone asking would get "It's none of your *********** business what I do with my cock."

For the record, I was amazed at the stupidity displayed by an otherwise intelligent man.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion

1) When your car mechanic lies to you about sex, it doesn't mean he is not a good car mechanic.

2) When your car mechanic lies to you about car repairs, it means that he is not a good car mechanic.

1), applies to Clinton:

his lie didn't affect his work;

2), applies to Bush:

his lie affects his work;
Bush used in Congress a forged document about ties between Niger and Iraq in the Iraqi's nuclear program;
based on Bush's forged document, U.S. wars against Iraq, kills and maims thousands and wastes billions of U.S. tax money.


:mad: ... :rolleyes:


For the umpteenth time!! It isn't about sex!!

It is about the rule of law!

1) When your car mechanic lies to you about sex under oath in a court of law, he has perjured himself.

2) When your car mechanic lies to you about car repairs under oath in a court of law, he has perjured himself.

He lied...under oath...

Get it yet?

As far as your claims about the President -- they are nothing more than unproven allegations. Besides that, this "forged document" wasn't even the linchpin that allowed the invasion of Iraq to proceed! Until something changes or new evidence arises, the President has committed no impeachable offense.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by No Answers

But if it were me, anyone asking would get "It's none of your *********** business what I do with my cock."

As I've already posted, this response, at least, I could respect...

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Kodiak

I may be wrong, but doesn't the oath one takes in court say to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth???

(Thanks for the link about being disbarred.)

I think that, legally, "the whole truth" is a much more narrow definition than you're trying to apply. Regardless, he skirted the edges of the law, and paid the price.

I said I only mildly disagree. You said,

Instead he lied...

I don't think he was lying, he was trying really hard not to have the truth exposed without lying. There is a distinction to me, albeit not much of one.

Ultimately, there's a very subjective judgement call as to whether or not he's lying.

Back to Bush, I still think that he was firmly convinced about everything he said, regardless of how wrong he may be. Doesn't it bother people here that Bush is a True Believer?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Kodiak

...
He lied...under oath...

Get it yet?
...

No.

He lied under oath and his lie didn't affect his work expertise.

Bush didn't lie under oath, but his lie kills thousands.

I prefer Clinton's lie, to Bush's lie.
Originally posted by Kodiak

...
As far as your claims about the President -- they are nothing more than unproven allegations. Besides that, this "forged document" wasn't even the linchpin that allowed the invasion of Iraq to proceed! Until something changes or new evidence arises, the President has committed no impeachable offense.
Well, that's not what the C.I.A. top ranks say.

As far as "Until..." goes, it seems to me that I am steps ahead of Bush's fans:

I was skeptic about WMDs remaining in Iraq after the U.N. ispections, Bush and his cohorts weren't, went to war, and found nothing.

So, Bush and his cohorts are wrong.

I am right.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Back to Bush, I still think that he was firmly convinced about everything he said, regardless of how wrong he may be. Doesn't it bother people here that Bush is a True Believer?

As an agnostic/atheist, I gotta say "no, not really". (I am keeping my eye on him, however...)

The President has said some surprisingly positive things about the faithless (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bushcoolframe.htm)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion

I prefer Clinton's lie, to Bush's lie.


Yippee for you... :rolleyes:

Fortunately, your preferences have no impact on the rule of law.


Originally posted by Ion

I was skeptic about WMDs remaining in Iraq after the U.N. ispections, Bush and his cohorts weren't, went to war, and found nothing.

So, Bush and his cohorts are wrong.

I am right.

You're a bit premature to say the least...

[Ion]

But you know where my preferences have an impact?

They have an impact on who is the U.S. President in 2004.

Did you sleep all day long, when these news:
Originally posted by pgwenthold

...
...(at least the vice-president) knew it was a fake already in Feb 2002. OTOH, Condy Rice claims that intelligence approved the statements the president made, ...
...

came?

Because if you didn't sleep all day long then, this is a matter of life, death and lack of professional integrity.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion

I was skeptic about WMDs remaining in Iraq after the U.N. ispections, Bush and his cohorts weren't, went to war, and found nothing.

So, Bush and his cohorts are wrong.



If Bush lied, then so did Blix, Clinton, Gore, and Chirac all did too... (See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1946168) All of these people claimed Iraq had WMD after the first round of inspections ended and war began.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


If Bush lied, then so did Blix, Clinton, Gore, and Chirac all did too... (See: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1946168) All of these people claimed Iraq had WMD after the first round of inspections ended and war began.
Doesn't make it right though does it?

[Ion]

Blix and Chirac wanted to pursue the U.N. inspections contrary to Bush.

It turns out that Blix and Chirac were right to want to pursue the U.N. inspections, and not to war.

Bush is wrong to cut the U.N. inspections, use a lying document he approved with the C.I.A., and to war without results.

I am stating the trivial.

[subgenius]

Never did get an adequate explanation for why the administration didn't provide its compelling evidence to the UN inspectors.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius

Doesn't make it right though does it?

Well, the question is, were all those people (Blix, Chirac, Gore, etc.) really lying, or did they just have incorrect information? And if they believed that Saddam had WMD (and you would have to expect that they had reasonable intelligence), isn't it reasonable for Bush to also believe that Saddam had WMD?

If Blix, Chrac etc. really believed that all WMD were eliminated, why did they not push for the inspections to end and for sanctions to be lifted?

The problem with most of the major leaders (prior to the war at least) is not that they disagreed over the existance of WMD, it was that they disagreed over they way to handle them. Anti-war leaders thought it could be handled by diplomacy and inspections. Pro-war leaders thought that inspections would not be successful.

[subgenius]

No, the question was, that doesn't make it alright.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
...were all those people (Blix, Chirac, Gore, etc.) really lying, or did they just have incorrect information?
...

.) Blix and Chirac stated that they wanted the U.N. inspections to pursue and not to war.

It turns out they were correct.

.) Bush stated that he wanted the U.N. inspections to stop and he wanted to war.

By using a lying document, which is deception.

It turns out that he is wrong.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion

1) When your car mechanic lies to you about sex, it doesn't mean he is not a good car mechanic.

2) When your car mechanic lies to you about car repairs, it means that he is not a good car mechanic.


Like I said, Clinton doesn't need apologists for the bad things he did. He did plenty of good things without having to spin perjury by an attorney and president as something that wasn't bad.

He especially doesn't need lame apologists who go to great lengths to equate things he did to thing they imagine other people did. "I know Clinton lied so I'll compare it to something I think Bush lied about". That is plain retarded. Why compare them?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by corplinx


Like I said, Clinton doesn't need apologists for the bad things he did. He did plenty of good things without having to spin perjury by an attorney and president as something that wasn't bad.

He especially doesn't need lame apologists who go to great lengths to equate things he did to thing they imagine other people did. "I know Clinton lied so I'll compare it to something I think Bush lied about". That is plain retarded. Why compare them?

Couldn't agree more.
Suddenly Clinton lying means that if Bush lied as well it is alright.
This is terrible logic.
People might want to realize that Clinton isn't even in office anymore (no, it's true).
So what good does dwelling on his "lies" do unless they have some sort of relevance to the topic at hand. Which they don't.

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx

...
He especially doesn't need lame apologists who go to great lengths to equate things he did to thing they imagine other people did. "I know Clinton lied so I'll compare it to something I think Bush lied about". That is plain retarded. Why compare them?
You brought it up here:
Originally posted by corplinx

...
Clinton doesn't need anyone to defend him for his perjury, especially if they are going to do it poorly.
didn't you?

Now, I agree with KelvinG that Bush lie is on its own merit:

Clinton is not in the office, Bush is, Bush lies and kills people.

[Ion]

Impeachment? Is it possible? With the Senate getting prepared to hold an investigation/inquiry/review (take your choice) will more voices such as Ted Rall's be raised?

By Ted Rall


NEW YORK--George W. Bush told us that Iraq (news - web sites) and Al Qaeda were working together. They weren't. He repeatedly implied that Iraq had had something to do with 9/11. It hadn't. He claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed banned weapons of mass destruction. He didn't. As our allies watched in horror and disgust, Bush conned us into a one-sided war of aggression that killed and maimed thousands of innocent people, destroyed billions of dollars in Iraqi infrastructure, cost tens of billions of dollars, cost the lives of American soldiers, and transformed our international image as the world's shining beacon of freedom into that of a marauding police state. Presidents Nixon and Clinton rightly faced impeachment for comparatively trivial offenses; if we hope to restore our nation's honor, George W. Bush too must face a president's gravest political sanction.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...16/7/4esz6.html

It ain't gonna happen, not with a Republican House of Representatives. No semen was spilled, so it's not important.

However, more outrage raising in U.S. over this lie that made an unnecessary war, international criticism over this that spills into the U.S. , and a U.S. economy poorly addressed by Bush, these will make Bush not being elected president again in 2004.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion
However, more outrage raising in U.S. over this lie that made an unnecessary war...


Try asking the Iraqi people how "unnecessary" this war was...

[Ion]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Try asking the Iraqi people how "unnecessary" this war was...
To them this war is as unnecessary, as U.S.S.R. 'liberating' them is:

the newspapers are full of Iraqi's population's repulsion of U.S..

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion

To them this war is as unnecessary, as U.S.S.R. 'liberating' them is:

the newspapers are full of Iraqi's population's repulsion of U.S..

Please reread my post.

I said they're happy with liberation, not necessarily with the liberators...

[subgenius]

Most (IMO) are, some are not. This is off topic though. The issue being were we misinformed about WMDs.

I'm sure glad Saddam is deposed (after we created the monster), and feel it was justified on many grounds, but no one appreciates being misled.
Its unfathomable how our intelligence agencies could not detect a forgery, or used questionable data. That is scary.
An inquiry is in order so that we may learn from history.
The credibility of this country is at stake. And that is important.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Please reread my post.

I said they're happy with liberation, not necessarily with the liberators...

I seem to remember seeing an opinion poll (from about a month ago) which showed something like 60-65% of Iraqis thought the invasion by the US was a good thing. (However, the number of people who wanted the Americans to stay long term fell to around 50%.) Sorry, I don't have the orignal link.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Most (IMO) are, some are not. This is off topic though. The issue being were we misinformed about WMDs.

I'm sure glad Saddam is deposed (after we created the monster), and feel it was justified on many grounds, but no one appreciates being misled.
Its unfathomable how our intelligence agencies could not detect a forgery, or used questionable data. That is scary.
An inquiry is in order so that we may learn from history.
The credibility of this country is at stake. And that is important.

What is unfathomable is the average persons ignorance concerning the diplomatic/military intelligence community. You have no idea of what they can and cannot detect. What should scare you is what would happen if our intelligence community wasn't as good at its job as it actually is. Perfect? No, but what is?

Indeed, an inquiry is in order, and is taking place as we speak on Capitol Hill.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm sure glad Saddam is deposed (after we created the monster), and feel it was justified on many grounds, but no one appreciates being misled.


Just want to point something out....

The US did NOT create Saddam. He came to power on his own (mostly through killing any potential rivals). And the US did very little to keep him in power. Even when they were nominally "allies" in the 80s (during the Iran/Iraq war), Saddam still received more arms imorts and aid from Russia, France, etc. than they ever did from the US.

I don't like being misled either. Here in Canada, our prime minister misled the people. The government opposed the war. Does that mean if you were in Canada, you would actually support the war (because the people against the war were misleading you)?

[subgenius]

Detecting a forged document is elementary Watson. Elementary.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Kodiak

...
I said they're happy with liberation, not necessarily with the liberators...
'Liberation' shmoberation, 'liberators' shmoberators, the Iraqis are not happy with the U.S. action, like they wouldn't be happy with an U.S.S.R. action against their culture.

These links describing the U.S. 'liberation' of Iraq, are not censored by U.S., and they speak about censorship and 'liberation':

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/42103/1html

and

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3758

[Ion]

This is baseless:
Originally posted by Kodiak

...
You have no idea of what they can and cannot detect.
...

Bush is in the the forgery, because his document was approved by the C.I.A. which knew at the highest level that it was a forgery since 2002:

http://www.tompain.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8069

The U.N. easily exposed the forgery used in the U.S..

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion

'Liberation' shmoberation, 'liberators' shmoberators, the Iraqis are not happy with the U.S. action, like they wouldn't be happy with an U.S.S.R. action against their culture.


Ah, yes...Goebbels back from the grave forcing all those Iraqis in all those Iraqi towns to dance on the various destroyed statues of Saddam Hussein, forcing Iraqis to stand at the side of roads and throw flowers and kisses at the passing allied troops, forcing those banished Iraqis in cities like Dearborn, Michigan and Farmington Hills, Michigan to dance in the streets of America waving American flags and volunteering to go back to Iraq and take a hand in that country's reconstruction. :rolleyes:

Riiiggght... :rolleyes:

[Ion]

Originally posted by Kodiak

...
Riiiggght... :rolleyes:
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight:p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight:p

As Homer Simpson once told Lisa:

"You're living in a world of make-believe!"

[Ion]

Originally posted by Kodiak

...
"You're living in a world of make-believe!"
You naively live in a Bush's make-believe world:

first there 'are' the 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq, but since that fails in spite of Bush's wishful lies, now there is the 'liberation' of Iraq by this U.S. war on Iraq -Bush's 'free enterprise' (U.S.S.R.-style) in Iraq-.

Me, I don't live in the make-believe world.

This -posted by Malachi151 in the thread 'The Truth about Iraqi WMDs!'-, should allow you to exit the Bush's make-believe world and catch up with the real world -the one which is not being shared by Bush with you-:

"I still contend that this war was about :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what conditions have led the Bush administration to pursue war in Iraq in order to promote this agenda, and what are the objectives of the conflict with Iraq, and in what way do they promote this agenda? (Note that I am referring to the Bush administration from prior to the time that Bush took office. Major members of the current Bush administration have been assembled and cooperating together as a group towards their goals since at least 1998.)

There seems to be several different "layers" of conditions that have compelled the Bush administration to seek war with Iraq.

1) Initial conditions that shaped the Bush administration's stance on Iraq (?-2000):

a) The Gulf region is an area that has been deemed essential to control for the purpose of American national security and American control in that region has been undermined since 1979 when the Shah was removed from power.

b) The Iraqi oil resources are underdeveloped which presents a large economic opportunity for oil companies, but they are nationalized which negates much of that opportunity.

c) It was likely that any change of power that occurred within Iraq based on the will of the Iraqi people would see the rise of an anti-American government in Iraq because the interests of most Iraqis as viewed by Iraqis is in opposition to America or American desires and ways.

d) The situation in Iraq presented a window of opportunity for American involvement in the shaping of the Middle East because after years of sanctions some change was going to have to take place in Iraq. If America did not act on it unilaterally then the international community would act on it, which would be less advantageous for American interests.

e) Saddam Hussein remained a regional threat that undermined American interests in the Middle East.

f) The European Union was growing increasingly more powerful, and moving towards a stronger political, military, and economic position.

g) The euro was launched and successful.

h) Saddam Hussein was allowed to move his UN oil-for-food account to Euros instead of dollars, which ended up being profitable for Iraq (while Clinton was still in office)

2) Progressing conditions that elevated the Bush administration's stance (2001 - 2003)

a) Other OPEC countries began considering a move to the euro, following Iraq's successful lead.

b) The euro began gaining prominence in the Middle East through both Iraq and the EU.

c) The September 11, 2001 attack on America, which provided a strong window of opportunity to gain support for a full-scale invasion of Iraq and regime change.

d) The EU's role in Middle Eastern politics and economics was continuing to increase.

e) OPEC began seriously considering adopting the euro as their primary currency.

What is significant about these conditions is that most of them have not been addressed publicly by the Bush administration, and some of them have actually been denounced as factors influencing their decision to go to war with Iraq, such as Iraq's under developed oil reserves.

I broke these conditions up into two groups. The conditions that originally influenced the Bush "administration" prior to taking office, and the conditions that would have strengthened the administrations resolved after having taken office.

It's clear that the Bush administration already felt strongly about the need to invade Iraq even prior to Iraq's move to the euro. This is evidenced most prominently by the 1998 letter to Clinton. The entire Gulf region has long been considered an area that is directly linked to American national security because of the high amount of oil in that region and America's dependence on that oil for the American economy and the American military. As was already stated, the Carter Doctrine was established in 1980 and stated plainly that, “an attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"

[subgenius]

Only thing you forgot was the need for a military base other than Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz even admitted this.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Ion

No.

He lied under oath and his lie didn't affect his work expertise.

Bush didn't lie under oath, but his lie kills thousands.

I prefer Clinton's lie, to Bush's lie.

Well, that's not what the C.I.A. top ranks say.

As far as "Until..." goes, it seems to me that I am steps ahead of Bush's fans:

I was skeptic about WMDs remaining in Iraq after the U.N. ispections, Bush and his cohorts weren't, went to war, and found nothing.

So, Bush and his cohorts are wrong.

I am right.

Bull-crap!

You want to impeach Bush because it would be lovely revenge against repubs that did impeach Clinton.

There is no legal standing for an impeachment of Bush...there is no political support for an impeachment of Bush.

Clinton perjured himself. That makes him a felon. A felon may not serve as President of the United States.

Your analogy is false. You are full o' bull.

-z

[repairman]

NPR is reporting that an intelegence analist is saying that befor the state of the union speach the Bush adminastration was told that the British document was a forgery. What did the adminestration do? They changed the language of the speach! They said "well lets just say the British are saying that they have evidence that Iraq is trying to purchace uranium."


THAT is the lie!!!:mad:

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
A felon may not serve as President of the United States.

Funny, I don't remember reading that in the Constitution anywhere. Where are you getting that from?

[Segnosaur]

I have a question...

A lot of people said that Clinton lied, others have said that Bush lied, and that Clinton's lies A) weren't that serious, and B) didn't lead to anyone's death.

Now, I have a question: do you think that Clinton's bombing of Iraq were politically motiviated? Recall, Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq. The reason given was supposedly Iraqi non-cooperation; however, if my memory serves me correctly on this, the bombings occured around the time of the Lewinski scandal, and there were suggestions (in the media and elsewhere) that Clinton ordered the strikes to deflect criticism over his own personal scandals.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Now, I have a question: do you think that Clinton's bombing of Iraq were politically motiviated? Recall, Clinton ordered an attack on Iraq. The reason given was supposedly Iraqi non-cooperation; however, if my memory serves me correctly on this, the bombings occured around the time of the Lewinski scandal, and there were suggestions (in the media and elsewhere) that Clinton ordered the strikes to deflect criticism over his own personal scandals.

That was not the bombings of Iraq. It was the missile attack on Osama Bin Laden. Clinton was immediately accused of "Wag the Dog" as an attempt to deflect attention from his scandal, and it was never pursued.

IOW, the Republicans were criticizing Clinton for attacking a potential terrorist threat.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


That was not the bombings of Iraq. It was the missile attack on Osama Bin Laden. Clinton was immediately accused of "Wag the Dog" as an attempt to deflect attention from his scandal, and it was never pursued.

IOW, the Republicans were criticizing Clinton for attacking a potential terrorist threat.

No, I think they were different things.

The attacks on Afghanistan were (I believe) in response to the attack on the USS Cole; the response was to launch cruise missles at al Quaeda bases in Afghanistan. Given the fact that the bases had already been deserted, the attacks didn't really do much.

I did a quick google search on Clinton bombing Iraq, and found many articles on the situation. For example, see: http://www.salisburypost.com/editorials/editorial121798.htm (Note: I don't know how biased that report is; however, there were others that gave roughly the same information.)

[Ion]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Bull-crap!

You want to impeach Bush because it would be lovely revenge against repubs that did impeach Clinton.
...
-z
Me I want "...revenge against repubs..."?

You are grossly challenged as far as understanding of what I posted in this thread goes.

[Ion]

In line with this post that I wrote yesterday:
Originally posted by Ion

...
This -posted by Malachi151 in the thread 'The Truth about Iraqi WMDs!'-, should allow you to exit the Bush's make-believe world and catch up with the real world -the one which is not being shared by Bush with you-:

"I still contend that this war was about :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...

here are some news about how Bush is 'liberating' Iraq into his imposed 'free enterprise' over there:

The Bush administration is considering a plan to pay for Iraq's reconstruction by mortgaging its future oil revenue.
The proposal, which could involve issuing securities or trade credits backed by projected oil revenue, has the enthusiastic endorsement of the two major U.S. companies with reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Halliburton Co. and Bechtel Group Inc.

The “Coalition for Employment Through Exports”, an American business group representing major exporters, have been knocking on doors throughout the Bush administration to argue that securitization of trade credits through the Ex-Im Bank and other nations' export agencies could generate as much as $4 billion a year in financing for Iraq. The business group includes among its members Halliburton, whose Kellogg, Brown & Root subsidiary has a $180 million contract to refurbish Iraq's oil industry (note: KB&R has already run over that budgeted amount in only their second month of operation in Iraq), and Bechtel, which has a $680 million contract to rebuild other Iraqi infrastructure.

Edmund B. Rice, president of the trade group, said securitization of future revenue is essential because oil production will ramp up much more slowly than the administration has forecast, limiting the funds available to coalition authorities. U.S. officials have said that revenue will reach $5 billion in the second half of this year and $14 billion to $15 billion in 2004. Mr. Rice said looting and poor maintenance at oil facilities make those projections unlikely.

The securitization proposal, however, could be politically explosive among the Iraqi public, sensitive to the perception that Americans are pillaging their national bounty.

[Ion]

For those naive believers in Bush's lies about WMDs and 'liberation' of Iraq, here is some recent history about Bush concocting them, coming from the U.K.:

1) former British cabinet minister Short says she was briefed on war pact and WMD was a ruse.
Bush and Blair agreed in the Summer of 2002 to go to war in Iraq in the Spring of 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,979786,00.html)

2) former British cabinet minister Cook says "there was a selection of evidence to support the conclusion."
Cook's testimony (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,979260,00.html)

I hope that the uproar in U.K. and Europe, spills into the more dense brains of the U.S..

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ion
For those naive believers in Bush's lies about WMDs ....

I hope that the uproar in U.K. and Europe, spills into the more dense brains of the U.S..

Its really funny you know, you hurl "dense" "naive" and other words. And you are the epitome of a twit yourself. You keep citing tompaine and the guardian and expect that to support your arguements. Here's your ticket son, go hang out on some other board.

[Ion]

Originally posted by corplinx


Its really funny you know, you hurl "dense" "naive" and other words. And you are the epitome of a twit yourself. You keep citing tompaine and the guardian and expect that to support your arguements. Here's your ticket son, go hang out on some other board.
No, grandpa:

my words, from me to you and to your next generations, are slowly changing you for the better.

I am liberating you, grandpa.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Its really funny you know, you hurl "dense" "naive" and other words. And you are the epitome of a twit yourself. You keep citing tompaine and the guardian and expect that to support your arguements. Here's your ticket son, go hang out on some other board.

I saw an interview with the woman on ABC news last night, (the Australian ABC, that is). She made the same claims, so it has nothing to do with if it is a guardian story or not.

The rumors of war and the intention to go to war were apparent well before it started.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Ion
For those naive believers in Bush's lies about WMDs and 'liberation' of Iraq, here is some recent history about Bush concocting them, coming from the U.K.:

1) former British cabinet minister Short says she was briefed on war pact and WMD was a ruse.
Bush and Blair agreed in the Summer of 2002 to go to war in Iraq in the Spring of 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,979786,00.html)

2) former British cabinet minister Cook says "there was a selection of evidence to support the conclusion."
Cook's testimony (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,979260,00.html)

I hope that the uproar in U.K. and Europe, spills into the more dense brains of the U.S..

And poor Saddam was just a misunderstood, underprivileged child of society.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


No, I think they were different things.

The attacks on Afghanistan were (I believe) in response to the attack on the USS Cole; the response was to launch cruise missles at al Quaeda bases in Afghanistan. Given the fact that the bases had already been deserted, the attacks didn't really do much.

I did a quick google search on Clinton bombing Iraq, and found many articles on the situation. For example, see: http://www.salisburypost.com/editorials/editorial121798.htm (Note: I don't know how biased that report is; however, there were others that gave roughly the same information.)

Are you sure you're not talking about the Clinton Administration's bombing of an aspirin factory?

Clinton attacks Sudanese drug facility. (http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


No, I think they were different things.

The attacks on Afghanistan were (I believe) in response to the attack on the USS Cole; the response was to launch cruise missles at al Quaeda bases in Afghanistan. Given the fact that the bases had already been deserted, the attacks didn't really do much.

I did a quick google search on Clinton bombing Iraq, and found many articles on the situation. For example, see: http://www.salisburypost.com/editorials/editorial121798.htm (Note: I don't know how biased that report is; however, there were others that gave roughly the same information.)

They are actually both examples. I found these websites

http://www.anusha.com/wag-dog.htm
http://www.naplesnews.com/special/attack/111attae.htm


as examples of where the attacks on Bin Ladin were treated with "Wag the Dog" criticism (and that is just a first page glance in a search).

Interestingly, do a search of "military attacks on bin ladin ordered by Clinton" and you get, among other things, new articles explaining who bin Ladin is. IOW, no one knew about him but the US government did.

But there is also additional accusations on later attacks. This one is my favorite

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1247.cfm

"PRESIDENT CLINTON ATTACKS IRAQ ON EVE OF IMPEACHMENT VOTE -- ANOTHER WAG THE DOG SCENARIO"

In retrospect, you gotta love his reference to Scott Ritter. Think this guy has listened to Ritter recently?

At the same time, he also refers to the attacks on Sudan (which were at the same time as Afghanastan) as an example of Wag the Dog, too. So basically, both were criticized as such.

[Ion]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

And poor Saddam was just a misunderstood, underprivileged child of society.
This is what you claim.

Me, I don't claim this.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Are you sure you're not talking about the Clinton Administration's bombing of an aspirin factory?



Hey, just say no to drugs....

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


They are actually both examples.


Which brings me back to my original point... People here are claiming Clinton's lies weren't serious, while Bush's actions caused thousands of deaths. Do people think that Clinton's "wag the dog" attacks on Iraq, the Sudan and/or Afghanistan were in any way related to his scandal over Lewinski?

And which is worse? A president who launches a small attack, kills a relatively small number of people, and leaves the status quo in place, or one who launches a bigger attack, resulting in more deaths, but leaves the country with the chance of improvement?

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

...
...or one who launches a bigger attack, resulting in more deaths, but leaves the country with the chance of improvement?
The one who "...launches a bigger attack, resulting in more deaths,..." by knowingly using forged data and having an agenda hidden from the population he allegedly represents, this one should go to jail.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ion
...and having an agenda hidden from the population he allegedly represents, this one should go to jail.

I know you're not going to like hearing this, but there are countless things on the President's agenda that the public has absolutely no business or right knowing about.

You need to stop wearing your utopian-colored glasses when discussing modern diplomacy and/or statecraft.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I know you're not going to like hearing this, but there are countless things on the President's agenda that the public has absolutely no business or right knowing about.

You need to stop wearing your utopian-colored glasses when discussing modern diplomacy and/or statecraft.
I don't "...like hearing this..." indeed, since Bush hit an unprecedented "...modern diplomacy and/or statecraft." shame by worldwide standards.

Short of impeachment for his irresponsibility, I think that there are different systems of thinking that can be implemented in 2004.

Like when electing the next U.S. President, electing the much different system of Howard Dean.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Kodiak

You need to stop wearing your utopian-colored glasses when discussing modern diplomacy and/or statecraft.

I strongly suggest you not bother trying to debate Ion. I've tried before, but came to the conclusion that he is a one-trick pony, and a troll. (Worse part is, he isn't even a very entertaining one.)

Best to find other people on the anti-war side who are at least reasonable to debate with and are willing to acutally respond to points you post.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I know you're not going to like hearing this, but there are countless things on the President's agenda that the public has absolutely no business or right knowing about.

You need to stop wearing your utopian-colored glasses when discussing modern diplomacy and/or statecraft.

Err, wrongo!

So you think that the public has NO RIGHT to know about the agenda of the leaders that it elects!?!

How can you even call government democracy if the public doesn't know the agenda of those it elects or the factors that affect decision making?

Please see the paper in my sig:

This war in Iraq is about so much more than Iraq. This war is about everything.

This war is about the American system; this war is about the global community; this war is about our economy; lies we have all been told for generations; this war is about 500 years of history; this war is about 500 years of the future. This war really is about everything.

President George W. Bush Jr. has lied to bring us to war with Iraq. Whether this war be right or wrong, and whether its immediate consequences be good or bad, there can be no denial that the nation was moved to war with lies. So what does that mean?

Three basic ways to see this are:

1) No, he didn’t lie. If you believe that he lied then you are un-American. If you call the president a liar then you should leave the country; you should be ashamed. If you believe that the president is a liar then you are a horribly misinformed and misguided person that has no morals. We should all trust the president and have faith in him and our nation’s leaders.

If this is true then we have a lot of misguided Americans, and a world that is against the rest.

2) Yes, he lied. On top of that, the entire American system supported the lies; we have all been lied to for years by the American government, but that’s just the reality of life in the modern world. It’s not possible for the government to be honest and open with American citizens for a variety of reasons including national security. We all have to just put our trust in leadership in order to be safe and to be happy because the issues are too complex for the average citizen. National, and world, security depends on secrecy.

If this is true then democracy is dead, as uninformed puppets cannot govern themselves.

3) Yes, he lied, and the entire system supported his lies. Not just his lies, but lies that have gone on for generations in America, lies told by politicians and businessmen alike. Bush did lie, he cheated, and he stole, and his agenda may not be in the best interests of the American people or the people of the world.

If this is true then what does it say about our system? How did we come to this?

The first thing that I’m going to do is present the case that the Bush administration is full of lies. Then I will take the case all the way back to World War II, where, for all intents and purposes, this problem started. Of course the issues can really be traced back even further then that, back to the formation of America, back even to Columbus’ Voyage of Discovery and beyond.

The war on Iraq was really designed to be a war on the European Union, OPEC, and the UN as much as a war on Iraq. It was designed to indirectly attack the EU and UN via the Iraqi situation. The three primary goals were to secure American influence in the Persian Gulf, weaken the EU and UN, and gain increased influence over OPEC.

The problem is NOT with the public, the problem is in leadership.

Yes, there are things that the public currently would not understand or would be shocked by or would completely blw the mind of the average citizen, but that is not an excuse to keep lying and keeping hiding information, that is the reason why we need to be more open in government, not less.

Our population is not curretly well educated enough to undestand the decision making processes in government, I agree, so we need to education people to the point that they will understand.

Overall, what has taken place in America over the past 50 years is that American leadership, both public and private, has become increasingly secretive. A framework of lies has been created in which American society functions, which is separate from the modern views of reality in which American leadership functions. American leaders continue to support this framework of lies and use this framework of lies as an arena within which to present ideas to us, the American people. Within this framework of lies the world appears to be a simplistic place of good and evil. The feeling of Americans that we are the most successful people on earth and that America is the most successful country is used to support the idea that America's policies are inherently altruistic because our culture tells us that success is the measure of goodness. What is actually the case though is that America is successful precisely because American policy is not altruistic.

"We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction."

It's time for George Keenan's message to be understood by all Americans, and for us to face reality as a society with our eyes wide open, not as an uninformed mob that is puppeted by liars and thieves.

[fishbob]

You need to stop wearing your utopian-colored glasses when discussing modern diplomacy and/or statecraft. Modern diplomacy and statecraft do not require lying to your constituents.

Warning - Game Analogy: Winning is good, but is winning by cheating just as good as winning fairly? {end of analogy}

Wouldn't GWB be in a much better position now if he had gone into Iraq because Saddam was evil, Saddam tried to kill GW Sr., Saddam was not in compliance with UN resolutions, etc - legitimate reasons? Now that would have been diplomatic and statesmanlike.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I strongly suggest you not bother trying to debate Ion. I've tried before, but came to the conclusion that he is a one-trick pony, and a troll.
...

How does it feel to have your input being proven wrong?

Your input should feel stupid, I guess.

The latest example of your input being proven wrong is in the simple truths stated in the last two replies, by Malachi151 and fishbob.

[CapelDodger]

From Kodiak:
I know you're not going to like hearing this, but there are countless things on the President's agenda that the public has absolutely no business or right knowing about.
This is supposedly a democracy we're talking about. The public may not need to be privy to every report or every piece of advice, but the agenda should be what the president was elected to do, and what he's going to be held accountable for. If the establishment of US military power in Iraq is on the president's agenda, but he claims his policy is concerned with WMD, then that's something to worry about in a democracy.

Not that I'm much concerned about democracy myself, but I know lots of people feel quite strongly about it. Hard to see why when you look at the US version of it. No offence meant. Nobody's fault.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Mountain of a molehill.

SO the CIA got something wrong....

First off that's not lying. (Lying is intentional deception.)

Secondly you don't quite a war to stop an evil dictator just because one agency hasn't investigated one document that *might* be wrong well enough.

And yes subgenius, the world's most powerful intelligence agencies sometimes gets things wrong too. They are like the UN and other organizations open to confirmation bias and perhaps don't have the time to investigate every single document that *might* be false.

But I know the emotional responses coming "It's the president!" ...."on the subject of war."

But again, even the president gets things wrong. And it's not merely about war but a war that would take out a dangerous and brutal dictator.

So a mistake was made by the CIA and because of that a brutal dictator was taken out, sounds like a good deal to me.

Would you rather have it they discovered that one document was forged and decided not to invade Iraq because of that? Perhaps let Saddam and his son stay in power another 50 or so years?


So I repeat its one document that they made a mistake on.

Though it's not like this is really what concerns you at all.

It's not like you were for the war before this document was found, or before the WMDs were not found in post-war Iraq.

Nah you and others judged it as soon as you heard of it as "about oil." Basically because you are anti-war, anti-american/western values and anti-Bush.

This argument and all others are ad hoc.

And to this end you will continue to nit pick and make mountains out of mole hills. Nevermind damn near nobody in the pro-war lobby based all their argument on WMDs, or stated that all the statements Bush made concerning this WMD issue were correct. Or that most pro-war advocates in fact saw the whole issue as a McGuffin.


Lastly what is your moral theory?

If you are a relativist, then you can't really convict Bush for lying or making a mistake can you....because it's all relative.

If you are more teleological/situational/objective, then you likewise cannot codemn Bush for removing Saddam Hussein does more good then harm. (Making a mistake and still doing something good.)

Now if you are absolutist or deontological you can. But I doubt this is you. (And if you are one of these you then have to condemn every leader in history, including God IF you believe in It.) ;)

So tell me which of the three are you, absolutist, relativist, or objective/situational humanist/utilitarian?

[Malachi151]

While agree wiht some of what you said, its not "one document that they made a mistake on."

Have you not been paying attention to the dozen or so "mistakes"?

So far I have seen little to nothing that they were right about.

The issue is not the war, its the deception and/or the process.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I disagree with deception as well. Proving it however is very difficult. People sometimes make mistakes, especially government bodies that have to deal with tons of information a day. Especially when they want to believe what they are hearing for whatever reason.

So yes deception or being incompetent in this issue should perhaps be condemned,criticized or punished if they are overly abundant. But to me this doesn't really detract from the justification for the war issue.

I really don't like the idea of punishing people who lead the war after the war is over though. Of course there are limits but not researching a document or a few documents well enough seems insufficient. Stalin did stuff like that(condemning his Generals and such after thw war ended), and to me it seems somewhat of a backstabbing-partisan move.

Clinton for example when he shot cruise missiles at terrorist camps likely made a few mistakes, but I think in the end he did more good then harm.

Personally I think Clinton was a better president then Bush anyways though. (He wanted to start a war on terror long before Bush, he just didn't get the support from a republican congress which saw Clinton's actions as premature.)

[Ion]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

...
So yes deception or being incompetent in this issue should perhaps be condemned,criticized or punished if they are overly abundant. But to me this doesn't really detract from the justification for the war issue.
...

The U.N. had another approach to Iraq than what Bush's U.S. has, approach that makes sense internationally and to which ex-U.S. President Clinton was urging Bush in the newspapers before the war to have the U.S. subscribe to.

To me, Bush's deception in U.N., in U.S. and in this forgery for the U.S. Congress, and incompetence at being the U.S. President in charge with one (not two) correct and candid grave decision in Iraq, does detract from the justification for the U.S. war on Iraq:

what's the difference between U.S. and the U.S.S.R., if presidential deception and incompetence don't detract from war?

[crocodile deathroll]

IMHO I cannot see any excuse for WMDs anywhere in the Middle East at the moment and that includes Israel who already has them, and there it is more a case of a "smoking cannon" than a smoking gun.

So both Israel and Iran ought to be subjected to the scrutiny UN weapon inspectors with complete unfettered access to rid them of their WMDs.

The WMDs. in Israel can just as easily get into the hands of terrorists as they could in Iran, because after all there is such a thing as "intelligence leaks". If the neocons in the Pentagon overlook this, then America may be in for a very rude awakening within the next 10 or 25 years from now as one of their cities goes up in a mushroom cloud.

So I see no way out of another US military "shock an awe" strike on Israel to preempt this serious threat, and rid all the Middle East of WMDs once and for all.

[Ion]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

...
So I see no way out of another US military "shock an awe" strike on Israel to preempt this serious threat, and rid all the Middle East of WMDs once and for all.
It makes sense.

Especially since Israel broke sixty-something various U.N. Resolutions, as opposed to only fifty-something by Iraq.

However the main Bush's question in this matter, is:

does Israel have oil?

Because oil is the name of Bush's agenda -in Iraq for example-, instead of the agenda that a real president should have -protecting and developing all the people-.

Bush tries hard to cover his agenda through forgery and incompetence (about WMDs, 'liberation' or anything that impresses dumb war-hawks), just to get rolling the killing war for greedy oil profits:


http://www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1028&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[reprise]

If I understand the impeachment process correctly, it's a long, drawn out affair and in the event of the POTUS being impeached, the Vice President assumes the Presidency until the next scheduled election.

If both of those things are correct, what would be the point in impeaching Bush? Doing so wouldn't force and election which might result in a new administration, and surely the VP would have been privy to the same information on which Bush based his decisions (and therefore would have been complicitly involved in any misleading of Congress or the American people if such occured).

I understand the humiliation and disgrace factor which is involved in impeachment, but it seems designed to punish the individual rather than to offer the public an alternative administration (which they'll have an opportunity to elect in 2004 anyway).

[Ion]

I posted many times in this thread, the solution that I see to this disaster is to elect a better person for U.S. President in 2004.

Here, I only expose the current disaster.

[Segnosaur]

I'm assuming you made this post as a joke (or at least parts of it). But, there are some feeble minded people reading this forum who may think you're serious, so some counter points should be made....

Note: I notice you tend to use the phrase WMD, which includes nuclear, chemical and biological, but you also indicate (using phrases like "mushroom cloud", and your concentration on Israel) that you are focusing on Nuclear weapons only.

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
IMHO I cannot see any excuse for WMDs anywhere in the Middle East at the moment and that includes Israel who already has them, and there it is more a case of a "smoking cannon" than a smoking gun.


While I don't like the fact that any country in the middle east has nuclear weapons, it should be noted that Israel is about the only country that is virtually surrounded by countries that want it totally eliminated, and have gone to war several times in the past 50 years to try to accomplish that goal (even before the 'palistinian problem'). And even though some countries (like Egypt) have declared 'peace', others (like Syria) have given no indication of recognizing Israel's right to exist.

So, if Israel has its nuclear deterrent removed, do you think that the rest of the world would be willing to step in to protect it, shoud Arab nations attempt an invasion again? Would the UN? Would the US? Would your country?

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
So both Israel and Iran ought to be subjected to the scrutiny UN weapon inspectors with complete unfettered access to rid them of their WMDs.


There is one major difference between the two countries... Iran had signed various non-poliferation treaties. These treaties gave Iran assistance in 'civilian' nuclear development, but meant that they were not to attempt to build their own weapons.

Israel signed no such treaties; therefore, they are under no 'legal' obligation to allow in international inspectors.

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
The WMDs. in Israel can just as easily get into the hands of terrorists as they could in Iran, because after all there is such a thing as "intelligence leaks". If the neocons in the Pentagon overlook this, then America may be in for a very rude awakening within the next 10 or 25 years from now as one of their cities goes up in a mushroom cloud.


Although they 'can' get into terrorist hands, it is very unlikely. Iran provides aid to current terrorist groups, whereas Israel does not.

And if you are worried about 'intelligence leaks', I think the greater danger is that terrorists would get their hands on nuclear technology from the former Soviet Union (who have many poorly paid scientists and officers who might want to 'make a buck'), or from Pakistan (who has officers sympathetic to the Taliban), or from North Korea (where they sell technology to the highest bidder) or even France (who maintains nuclear weapons, and has show in the past that it is willing to sell nuclear technology, such as to Iraq; the reactor that Israel bombed in the 80s was French, I believe.) If you want to eliminate any chance of terrorists getting nuclear weapons, it woudl be more effective invading those countries. (Actually, I'd support bombing France, well, just because they're french.) Israel's military is very well disciplined, scientists there are actually paid, etc, so there would be less chance of Israeli nuclear technology falling into the wrong hands than those other countries.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ion

How does it feel to have your input being proven wrong?

Your input should feel stupid, I guess.

The latest example of your input being proven wrong is in the simple truths stated in the last two replies, by Malachi151 and fishbob.

You DO realize that Malachi151 and fishbob were not actually responding to a post that I made, don't you? And the points that they made were of no direct relevance to any postings I had made.

I guess its too much to ask that you actually follow a thread now.

[Ion]

Segnosaur,

I realize that you don't realize that the points they were making are in support of my posts.

After I quote Malachi151 for example to make my points, it is then that you are comprehension challenged to write:
Originally posted by Segnosaur

I strongly suggest you not bother trying to debate Ion. I've tried before, but came to the conclusion that he is a one-trick pony, and a troll.
...

Find a professional to diagnose this stupidity, and your current inconsistency with this stupidity when restarting to debate me anyway.

It will help you.

As for Israel being "...disciplined...", tell this to the U.N. Commission on Human Right, which condemns Israel in more than sixty resolutions.

Applying Bush's official logic, then Israel needs a 'liberation' too.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The U.N. had another approach to Iraq than what Bush's U.S. has, approach that makes sense internationally and to which ex-U.S. President Clinton was urging Bush in the newspapers before the war to have the U.S. subscribe to.

The UN's solution was short sighted, impotent, and did nothing to actually help the people in Iraq or the ME as a whole.


what's the difference between U.S. and the U.S.S.R., if presidential deception and incompetence don't detract from war?

The differences lie in beliefs, values, political structure and degree.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Although they 'can' get into terrorist hands, it is very unlikely. Iran provides aid to current terrorist groups, whereas Israel does not.

And if you are worried about 'intelligence leaks', I think the greater danger is that terrorists would get their hands on nuclear technology from the former Soviet Union (who have many poorly paid scientists and officers who might want to 'make a buck'), or from Pakistan (who has officers sympathetic to the Taliban), or from North Korea (where they sell technology to the highest bidder) or even France (who maintains nuclear weapons, and has show in the past that it is willing to sell nuclear technology, such as to Iraq; the reactor that Israel bombed in the 80s was French, I believe.) If you want to eliminate any chance of terrorists getting nuclear weapons, it woudl be more effective invading those countries. (Actually, I'd support bombing France, well, just because they're french.) Israel's military is very well disciplined, scientists there are actually paid, etc, so there would be less chance of Israeli nuclear technology falling into the wrong hands than those other countries.



Easy, if someone on Israeli intelligence does not like Sharon's policies, he need not protest all that loudly like Andrew Wilkie (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s804540.htm) he will be too afraid to, so he will just covertly e-mail a message to Hezbolla and they will kindly send it on to a few scientists in Iran. Lets face up to facts, no country in the middle east should be trusted with Nuclear Weapons, as there is a far higher probability that they will be used in that region of the world than anywhere else.

Russia is not in such a hot bed of religious fanaticism that Israel is in, and thank goodness for that. Otherwise the last cold war would of turned very hot much earlier back in the 1950s with a clash between religious zealots on both sides, and it is that religious fanaticism in the middle east that is at the core of this current terrorist problem. The world would be far safer if we did not have any country with nuclear potential in that region. The world would be far safer with no nuclear weapons at all as the world is just too small for them but particularly in that region of the world as it will always treated a a red rag to a bull in the overly religiously zealous Arab world.

Just remember Saddam Hussein was only so desparate to produce them in the early 80s because Israel had them, period.

Did you ever consider that state terrorism of Israel as they have killed even more innocent civilians than Palestine, not that I condone what Palestine have done in their despised suicide bombing campaigns. I just that the suicide bomber is the poor man's cruise missile which causes just as much terrible collateral damage.
Just think, if Israel took preemptive action to drop nuclear bombs on Syria with the same kind of dubious intelligence Bush used to bomb Iraq.

[Ion]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

The UN's solution was short sighted, impotent, and did nothing to actually help the people in Iraq or the ME as a whole.
...

If the U.N. solution was "...impotent..." and Bush was honest, then Bush would have honestly worked under U.N. for a better solution.
That's what an honest statesman would have done.

Instead of honesty, by warring outside of the U.N. and by lying, Bush wants to ensure that his hidden agenda is out of public scrutiny.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

...
The differences lie in beliefs, values, political structure and degree.
The difference between U.S. and U.S.S.R. -that lies "...in beliefs, values, political structure and degree."-, gets blurred now with Bush's forgery and incompetence attempting to mask his hidden agenda.