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

[Art]

Nonetheless, this article came out several months before NATO went into Kosovo. Are you saying that because it came from Republicans that it is somehow untrue

Yes it is somehow untrue! Clinton was leading the push to gain support for intervention at home in the US. He was not leading the push for action in europe as Britain was already ahead of him there.

and therefore we never went into Kosovo?

?? strange logic , but why am I not surprised

I have made it abundantly clear that Clinton was responsible for the Kosovo action

Only in your own mind

which you still irrationally deny (although I have no idea why.

Uh because you are factually wrong!

 

[Hurkyl]

So his facts were, in fact not wrong. Got it.

So I'll ask his questions again, since you haven't responded to it, and I think I'd like to hear an answer:

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

 

[Art]

So his facts were, in fact not wrong. Got it.

So I'll ask his questions again, since you haven't responded to it, and I think I'd like to hear an answer:

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

I think the lack of intelligence in the intelligence services has been more than adequately demonstrated to the point of tedium,

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

Same tired, old tactics Hurkyl, eh what? Obfuscate the issues by concentrating on the irrelevent. That way you can steer the discussion to what you wished somebody had said rather than what they actually said.

 

[The Smoking Man]

So his facts were, in fact not wrong. Got it.

So I'll ask his questions again, since you haven't responded to it, and I think I'd like to hear an answer:

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

Ummm ... can you actually state the allegations by the appropriate souce and their source names, please?

I don't actually respond to 'air'.

I've shown you mine. Now YOU show me yours.

Ta.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

Oh and a big PS:

If that is your excuse for war by the way, you had better think again.

'National Defense' is not an excuse for war as applied by the Forth Geneva Convention as penned by the USA when they tried Japan for waging an illegal war.

If that is your excuse, then that would officially drop Bush beside Tojo as a class A war criminal.

You also seem to forget two pieces of evidence to come out of the UK:

1] The Downing Street Memo which proves the evidence you refer to was concocted. For a scientific website, to come up with a premise and then arrange the evidence to prove the allegation? Say it ain't so.

2] Some of the people you have thrown allegations about like for George Galloway have come out and refuted them themselves. If these are the allegations of which you speak, then you have some serious problems: http://deoxy.org/forum/showflat.pl?Board=politics&Number=27141

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

What is your answer to the allegation that the only reason France, Germany, Russia, and China didn't want war was because they were profitting from the way things were?

I'd say that was probably very accurate. The big difference between these countries and the coalition was that these countries refused to start a war to protect their economic interests, while the coalition did start a war so they could enhance theirs. But yes, when it comes to government, there are few saints. The only good guys are a country's conscientious people - not the leaders.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

'National Defense' is not an excuse for war as applied by the Forth Geneva Convention as penned by the USA when they tried Japan for waging an illegal war.

They could rename it 'non-enemy non-combatant defense'? Then it will be okay.

 

[Art]

They could rename it 'non-enemy non-combatant defense'? Then it will be okay.

I think if you just call it national defence without capitalising the n and d then it's also okay.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe I can help.

Go here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2766

What he is saying is that there were far worse products being supplied to Saddam from America.

There are no specific products mentioned in that article, so we are left to make assumptions. But what you don't need assumptions for are the facts that Iraq's Mig-29s and T-80s come from Russia, and nuclear power plants come from France.

Omitting the US from his statement is tantamount to trying to hide the truth.

Either you're missing the point of the statement or are intentionally trying to deflect the conversation away from it: At issue is motivations. Presumably, a country that is profiting from a situation would not want to change it. That fits the facts regarding France and Russia. But then it was brought up that the US also profited from Iraq - well that doesn't fit with the assertion that the US was motivated by profits. You're disproving your own argument by bringing it up!

But beyond that, the motivations issue is two separate questions and whatever the US's motivation, it has no bearing on France's and Russia's motivations. You're trying to avoid admitting that the facts indicate Russia and France were motivated by money!

I think the lack of intelligence in the intelligence services has been more than adequately demonstrated to the point of tedium...

That's true, but how does that fit with the fact that it wasn't just the US's intelligence service? Intelligence services all over the world made the same mistakes. It still means the US made the right decision with bad information and the "coalition of the unwilling" took the same information and made a bad decision.

Same tired, old tactics Hurkyl, eh what? Obfuscate the issues by concentrating on the irrelevent. That way you can steer the discussion to what you wished somebody had said rather than what they actually said.

Go back and read post 161 in case you missed it the first time. Aw heck, I'll quote it to save you the effort of looking for it:

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.

Two separate points were made:

1. The US had the same intelligence everyone else did and that intelligence indicated Iraq was a threat (it even says that specifically in the UN resolution threatening war). Everyone agreed, but only the US chose to act.
2. Other countries were profiting from the status quo and did not want to change it.

So, Art - it is you (et al) who are trying to avoid dealing with those points and are trying to change the subject, not the other way around.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh and a big PS:

If that is your excuse for war by the way, you had better think again.

'National Defense' is not an excuse for war as applied by the Forth Geneva Convention as penned by the USA when they tried Japan for waging an illegal war.

The Fourth Geneva convention was ratified after WWII and is about POW's, not motivations for war. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? And besides, Japan's motivation was expansion, not defense.

For those who haven't read it, HERE is UN resolution 1441. It says: "Recognizing the threat that Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass distruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."

It also mentions Iraq's connection to terrorism - yes, that's right, the war in Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terrorism.

It goes on:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions..."

This resolution was unanamously approved! Yes, that's right, the international community was in unanamous agreement before the war that Iraq sponsored terrorism and was a threat to international peace.

 

[Art]

But beyond that, the motivations issue is two separate questions and whatever the US's motivation, it has no bearing on France's and Russia's motivations. You're trying to avoid admitting that the facts indicate Russia and France were motivated by money! That's true, but how does that fit with the fact that it wasn't just the US's intelligence service? Intelligence services all over the world made the same mistakes. It still means the US made the right decision with bad information and the "coalition of the unwilling" took the same information and made a bad decision. Go back and read post 161 in case you missed it the first time. Aw heck, I'll quote it to save you the effort of looking for it: Two separate points were made:

1. The US had the same intelligence everyone else did and that intelligence indicated Iraq was a threat (it even says that specifically in the UN resolution threatening war). Everyone agreed, but only the US chose to act.
2. Other countries were profiting from the status quo and did not want to change it.

So, Art - it is you (et al) who are trying to avoid dealing with those points and are trying to change the subject, not the other way around.

Assuming Russia supplied this intel to the US then maybe the Russians are cleverer than you give them credit for and provided the US with disinformation to get their own back on the US for Afghanistan.
The only other state which 'claimed' conclusive evidence against Sadam was Britain and to say there are suspicions that, like America's, the information was 'fixed' is putting it mildly.
So now I have answered these points will you explain their relevence to the OP?

 

[Mercator]

At issue is motivations. Presumably, a country that is profiting from a situation would not want to change it. That fits the facts regarding France and Russia. But then it was brought up that the US also profited from Iraq - well that doesn't fit with the assertion that the US was motivated by profits. You're disproving your own argument by bringing it up!

So I DO have to spell it out.

First of all I thank you for this classic: "That the US also profited from Iraq does not fit with the assertion that the US was motivated by profits" . Let that sink in for a while as a prime example of US right wing reasoning.

I still have to see any proof of illegal dealings between France, Russia and Iraq but I don't doubt there will have been, like with so many countries. So Frnace, Russia and other European countries where having a business relationship with Iraq, sanctioned by the UN. So what? The US did too. It sounds cynical now, but all of them including the US were dealing with Iraq. So what? But at a given moment in time something changed the whole equation. Saddam decided to screw Americans and asked Euros for his oil. You don't seem to understand the implications of that simple fact.

Here a link to an article that sums up Saddam's remarks and actions that led directly to the American invasion :
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/history/welcome.html article "President Saddam Hussein believes oil prices are still 75 % below their value"

And here a lenghty but highly interesting article that explains why it was so dangerous for the US when Saddam switched to petro-Euros.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/history/welcome.html : Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars

Ironically, it may still be Saddam having the last laugh. After two years "controlling" Iraq the US did not succeed in securing the oil flow. And it may now be Iran and others switching to the Euro. And in a "democratic country" as Iraq will become, it will be very difficult for the US to invade again when the Iraqi clerics will also turn to the Euro as soon as you turned your backs.
See the same site article: "OPEC considers to use euro for pricing of crude oil"

So the US invaded Iraq to safeguard it's position in oil and it's currency. The only amazing thing about all this is the fact that most European countries chose not to join you in the invasion, despite the fact they knew the US was out in taking their interests by force if they did not. It is a remarkable stance revealing adherence to moral prniciples not often found among politicians.

So yes, the US invaded for profit and dominance. But of course you are free to dream on your silly dreams about WMD and your huge American humanitarian hart. Just don't bother intelligent people with that nonsense.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The Fourth Geneva convention was ratified after WWII and is about POW's, not motivations for war. Perhaps you are thinking of something else? And besides, Japan's motivation was expansion, not defense.

Sorry ... Brain Fart Kellog-Briand Pact 1927.

For those who haven't read it, HERE is UN resolution 1441. It says: "Recognizing the threat that Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass distruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security."

It also mentions Iraq's connection to terrorism - yes, that's right, the war in Iraq is a legitimate part of the war on terrorism.

But I thought 'The war on Terror' was a Bush invention?

In fact, scanning the whole document for the word 'terror' produces this single result and resolution 687 is about the taking of hostages in Kuwait and 688 terrorising its OWN population:

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

In fact, to my knowledge, the declaration of 'War on Terror' is an illegal act in itself because it specifies no actual combattant which must take place under the articles of war, declaration of war.

If it were true then any nation with an axe to grind could point and say "Terrorist" and be thus justified in any action they chose to take.

You'll also see that it fails the test of a presidentially declared war because it has no periodic congressional oversite.

It goes on:

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions..."

This resolution was unanamously approved! Yes, that's right, the international community was in unanamous agreement before the war that Iraq sponsored terrorism and was a threat to international peace.

Oh GOD, why do you persist?

Spell out what the remedies were by all means.

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

When my father promised 'serious consequences' for not finishing my homework, he didn't mean I was going to be beaten to death!

Now, go and read the Downing Street Memo dated July 23, 2002 and then read 1441 dated November 8, 2002. See if you can spot what was happening.

This was written before 1441 was even created:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force. [5]

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change. [6]

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work. [7]

 

[Hurkyl]

What is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

I think the lack of intelligence in the intelligence services has been more than adequately demonstrated to the point of tedium,

Okay, so you think intelligence agencies are lacking in intelligence. So... what is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) said that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

(I added a word I missed last time)

Same tired, old tactics Hurkyl, eh what? Obfuscate the issues by concentrating on the irrelevent. That way you can steer the discussion to what you wished somebody had said rather than what they actually said.

You mean asking questions whose answer I would like to hear? Seems like an appropriate way to do things to me. Oh, I suppose you mean that I should pretend, like you, that not answering a question really is an answer to the question.

If that is your excuse for war by the way, you had better think again.

I generally ask a question because I would like to see it answered. If I decided I would like to argue that national defense is a justification for war, I would do it explicitly.

(And yes, I did notice your use of the word "excuse", and the connotation associated with it, to belittle the opposing stance)

So I DO have to spell it out.

Generally, saying what you mean is better than imlpying it.

 

[Art]

Okay, so you think intelligence agencies are lacking in intelligence. So... what is your answer to the allegation that intelligence sources of multiple countries (including U.S. and Russia) said that the attack on Iraq did have bearing on national defense?

(I added a word I missed last time)

You mean asking questions whose answer I would like to hear? Seems like an appropriate way to do things to me. Oh, I suppose you mean that I should pretend, like you, that not answering a question really is an answer to the question.

I generally ask a question because I would like to see it answered. If I decided I would like to argue that national defense is a justification for war, I would do it explicitly.

(And yes, I did notice your use of the word "excuse", and the connotation associated with it, to belittle the opposing stance)


Generally, saying what you mean is better than imlpying it.

Now that's what I call serious obfuscation! You're even mixing unidentified quotes from other people in with mine Trust me Hurkyl you do not need anybody's help to belittle your stance you're doing great all on your own.

If you bother to check back you will find I have already answered your question re intelligence. Though FYI in general if I think you are asking a question to simply waylay the discussion by bogging it down in minor details then rest assured it will be ignored.

BTW It seems to have escaped your attention but this is a discussion board not an interrogation panel with you as the quiz master.

 

[Hurkyl]

I had no intention to suggest the other quotes were made by you. I generally do not name the quotee -- the only reason I had in the first quote is because I was quoting a series of quotes.

I don't see how I can be belittling my stance, because I have not presented one, nor am I even sure if I have one.


If you don't want to answer a question, then don't. Surely posting nonresponses contributes more to "bogging down" a discussion more than asking a question whose answer one would like to hear.

 

[Art]

I had no intention to suggest the other quotes were made by you. I generally do not name the quotee -- the only reason I had in the first quote is because I was quoting a series of quotes.

I don't see how I can be belittling my stance, because I have not presented one, nor am I even sure if I have one.

Presenting your quotes in such a way as to suggest to the readers of this thread that they are all attributable to me belittle your stance (your expression btw not mine) and your credibility as far as I am concerned

If you don't want to answer a question, then don't.

As I stated I already have answered the question you directed at me. Please stop suggesting I haven't, again it is misleading

Surely posting nonresponses, and even making a point of not answering questions, contributes more to "bogging down" a discussion more than asking a question whose answer one would like to hear.

If it's just information you're after you will find Google quite useful.

 

[Informal Logic]

Okay, so you think intelligence agencies are lacking in intelligence.

The poor CIA scapegoats. The intelligence agencies are fine. The intelligence was just "fixed" that is all.

Oh BTW, guess which intelligence source has been the most help in finding members of Al Qaeda? France. Those dirty $@##!*&!

In the meantime, are you all still arguing that the end justifies the means?

 

[Art]

Further evidence of shrub's lies,

T. Michael Moseley

US Air Force Lieutenant General T. Michael Moseley, in "a [July 19, 2003,] briefing to military commanders, ... acknowledged that the Air Force launched offensive operations against Iraq in June 2002. Three months before President George W. Bush appeared before the United Nations to present a case for 'disarming' Iraq, five months before the adoption of UN Resolution 1441 threatening 'serious consequences' if Iraq did not cooperate with weapons inspectors, and a full nine months before the war was officially announced, the Bush administration had already ordered combat operations to begin.

"In the midst of closed-door congressional inquiries and media speculation over whether the Bush administration went to war on the basis of 'manipulated' or 'faulty' intelligence, the response to Moseley's statements has been a deafening silence. Apart from news reports of Moseley's briefing in the weekend Washington Post and New York Times, nothing has been said about what amounts to an admission that the Bush administration lied to the American people for months about its intentions and operations in Iraq.

"Even as US planes were systematically destroying Iraqi air defenses and communications grids in preparation for a land war, under cover of patrolling the so-called 'no fly' zone (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm) in the south of the country, Bush was repeatedly insisting that he had made no decision on invading Iraq and was 'hoping for peace.' Moseley's briefing exposes the entire effort to secure United Nations backing and resume weapons inspections as nothing more than a cynical charade, behind which Washington carried on an air war to facilitate the rapid introduction of ground troops once war was publicly proclaimed.

"According to Moseley, the Air Force received its orders from the White House to begin the preparations for a war on Iraq in late 2001--following the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Source: James Conachy, "Military review reveals more government lies: US launched air war against Iraq in 2002," (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/air-j24.shtml) wsws.org, July 23, 2003.

The Sunday Times in Britain has picked up on this and has obtained data showing the amount of sorties flown and munitions dropped on Iraq rose sharply in this period.
Munitions dropped rose from virtually nothing in March and April 2002 to an average of 10 tons per month between May and August shooting up to 54.6 tons in September.
The suspected intention of this illegal* covert air war being to try and goad Iraq into a response to justify a war and to prepare the ground for the forthcoming invasion.
*congress which is the only body who can declare war in the US did not give shrub authorisation for war until Oct 11 2002 and so the legality of these air strikes is highly questionable.

 

[Hurkyl]

Presenting your quotes in such a way as to suggest to the readers of this thread that they are all attributable to me belittle your stance (your expression btw not mine) and your credibility as far as I am concerned

That doesn't change the fact I had no intention of suggesting all of those quotes were yours.

By the way, if you go back and read, you'll find that "my expression" was to speak of the "opposing stance" (that the war was justifiable), not "my stance".

As I stated I already have answered the question you directed at me. Please stop suggesting I haven't, again it is misleading

I didn't realize I had done such a thing. After all, I am responding to your post in which you suggest my questions will be ignored.

Surely posting nonresponses, and even making a point of not answering questions, contributes more to "bogging down" a discussion more than asking a question whose answer one would like to hear.

If it's just information you're after you will find Google quite useful.

Yes it is. I fail to see the relation to the quoted passage, though.


=== End of responses to Art's post ===

The poor CIA scapegoats.

I'm not sure why you're saying that to me, since Art was the one who said the intelligence agencies were lacking intelligence.

In the meantime, are you all still arguing that the end justifies the means?

Only when the situation calls for it.

 

[Hurkyl]

Oh, Mercator, could you fix your links?

 

[Informal Logic]

Further evidence of shrub's lies;

The Sunday Times in Britain has picked up on this and has obtained data showing the amount of sorties flown and munitions dropped on Iraq rose sharply in this period.
Munitions dropped rose from virtually nothing in March and April 2002 to an average of 10 tons per month between May and August shooting up to 54.6 tons in September.
The suspected intention of this illegal* covert air war being to try and goad Iraq into a response to justify a war and to prepare the ground for the forthcoming invasion.
*congress which is the only body who can declare war in the US did not give shrub authorisation for war until Oct 11 2002 and so the legality of these air strikes is highly questionable.

We know he lied, and lies just about everything all the time, because he is a habitual lier. And in his recent speech he just kept on doing it--multiple times he continued to link 9-11 to the invasion of Iraq. Where is the outrage in this forum, or even among the general populace of America?

The problem is reflected in the results of the poll stated earlier in this thread:

...responses to a question about whether Bush should be impeached if it is found that he didn't tell the truth about his reasons for initiating the conflict. Forty-two percent said ``yes'' and 50 percent said ``no,'' the latest survey showed.

Clinton could be impeached for lying about having sex (or should we say his definition of sex, i.e. intercourse versus oral), yet 50% of Americans say Bush should not be impeached for lying about going to war, at a total cost in 'blood and treasure' that we have yet to see. This hypocrisy and mentality (the end justifies the means) in our country is the problem--it is truly disgusting and appalling.

 

[Rev Prez]

Clinton could be impeached for lying about having sex (or should we say his definition of sex, i.e. intercourse versus oral), yet 50% of Americans say Bush should not be impeached for lying about going to war, at a total cost in 'blood and treasure' that we have yet to see. This hypocrisy and mentality (the end justifies the means) in our country is the problem--it is truly disgusting and appalling.

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

Rev Prez

 

[Informal Logic]

...What Shrub saw was the opportunity to take over the second largest field in the world however he did not anticipate the abuse of the fields reducing output to sbout 20% with only a possiblility of 80% recovery.

This is just another miscalculation by the Bush regime. Now we are spending astronomical sums in 'nation building' to stabilize an oil-rich country, while other areas of the world (e.g., what was spent on the Tsunami) receive a fraction of financial aid.

 

[Informal Logic]

Another explanation is that fifty percent--the armed half--of the country think that you and the remaining 42 are acting crazy.

Rev Prez

Excuse me, did you post something?

 

[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