Cindy's own words

[clk]

FIW I think Clinton was an idiot for putting himself in that position. However I don't think there should have been an investigation and I don't at all think he should have been impeached. That being said, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You and I can agree that he shouldn't have been impeached but can you get the facts straight?

I think it is ridiculous that you have to tell a lie under oath to get impeached. Clinton lies about sex, and all hell breaks loose. The 'liberal media' talks about it continuously.

Bush lies about WMD, the Republicans and the 'liberal media' look the other way, and this results in the loss of 1900 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars lost, plus the loss of the integrity of the US. Nothing happens to Bush, except re-election. Apparently this is not an impeachable offence.

Edit to add: Actually, I was wrong in saying that 'nothing happens'. Something does happen. Bush rewards the most incompetent people by promoting them. Rice gets to be Sec. State, Wolf gets the World Bank position. And Rumsfeld gets to keep his job. If any normal person had screwed up in the way that these guys had, they would not only have been fired from their job, they probably would have been thrown in jail and then sued. But in Bush land, it pays to be piss poor at your job. And if you actually perform well, like saying that we will need 300,000 troops instead of 180,000, your authority will be completely undercut.

 

[MarksSock]

I think it is ridiculous that you have to tell a lie under oath to get impeached. Clinton lies about sex, and all hell breaks loose. The 'liberal media' talks about it continuously.

Bush lies about WMD, the Republicans and the 'liberal media' look the other way, and this results in the loss of 1900 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars lost, plus the loss of the integrity of the US. Nothing happens to Bush, except re-election. Apparently this is not an impeachable offence.

Not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of our invasion. All conveniently ignored by the very same people who claim (now) that we went there to save the Iraqi people.

 

[RandFan]

I think it is ridiculous that you have to tell a lie under oath to get impeached. Clinton lies about sex, and all hell breaks loose. The 'liberal media' talks about it continuously.

He lied UNDER OATH! I'm sorry if that is too subtle and nuanced for your understanding. We are a nation of laws and not of men. Hopefully we are capable of understanding and have a sense of proportionality. But lying under oath is a serious offence regardless of the reason one does so. You and I agree that he should not have been impeached but come on, have the back bone to admit that lying under oath is not something to be taken lightly. Everyone who does so has justification and reason for doing so. It doesn't make it ok.

Bush lies about WMD...

Yes, that's right, keep repeating the mantra. Someday the very repeating of it will make it true.

...the Republicans and the 'liberal media' look the other way, and this results in the loss of 1900 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars lost, plus the loss of the integrity of the US. Nothing happens to Bush, except re-election. Apparently this is not an impeachable offence.

Ok, I think we get it. You hate George W. Bush, his administration and those things that don't square with your world view. You think the money and lives were a waste of time. Well good for you for having an opinion. I'm curios though, why do you state it as if we should all agree with you? I certainly don't. I don't take the loss of American lives lightly nor do I take spending so much money lightly. I don't share your opinion however.

 

[RandFan]

Not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of our invasion. All conveniently ignored by the very same people who claim (now) that we went there to save the Iraqi people.

It was not our intention that innocent Iraqi people die as a result of the invasion. However we must accept responsibility for those deaths. On balance is a people that have had an opportunity to vote and are no longer under the oppression of a murderous dictator and his two barbaric sons. Little consolation for those who have lost their lives but then not doing anything would have been little consolation for those who suffered and died under Saddam. And they were suffering but then that is conveniently ignored by those who criticize the decision to invade.

 

[Ziggurat]

I thought I did.

Yeah, I know, I just like making you work for it.

But I really am curious.

Alright.

In the leadup to the war, I think Bush didn't do a very good job at explaining why Iraq mattered beyond just the WMD question. I think the overemphasis on that made us vulnerable. I also think he should have made it more clear that it wasn't simply his current stockpile that was the problem, but that there was no other way to ensure he could never rearm in the future. He did this a bit, but not enough. I also think he should have been more explicit about what it was costing (in terms of dollars, strain on allies keeping them behind us, and on the Iraqis themselves) to maintain the sanctions and no fly zones. It was easy to get the impression that maintaining the status quo was cheap, but it wasn't. And lastly, regarding the WMD case, there's one misrepresentation that I place squarely on the administration's shoulders and not on bad intelligence, and that was the aluminum tubes thing. They got conflicting advice, and they shouldn't have gone with the CIA's assessment just because it backed their argument. So that's my criticism of Bush in the leadup to the war.

For the invasion itself, I have the feeling that we missed opportunities to get Turkey on board. Being able to strike through Turkey would have helped us immensely, and would have made it much harder for the Ba'athists to fall back to establish staging grounds for the subsequent insurgency. We missed an opportunity there, though in fairness it's not obvious to me exactly what we could have done that would have gotten Turkey to let us through.

In the wake of the invasion, we were slow to establish security, and were caught off guard by the strength of the insurgency. Reconstruction efforts have been significant and helpful, but not optimal. For example, CERP, a program which allows commanders at the street level to allocate small cash spending for whatever opportunities might come up (to pay for small reconstruction projects, to buy goods from the locals, whatever), has been incredibly effective for the amount of money allocated for it, but it took too long to really take off. At times we've been too cautious about going after insurgents: we should have finished Fallujah the first time around (spring 2004), and we should have taken Sadr down completely as soon as his goons started shooting.

But despite all the problems, I think it was worth it. Which is why I support Bush on Iraq, even though I think he has made mistakes.

On the domestic front, well, there's PLENTY I disagree with Bush about. I think the marriage ammendment is monumentally stupid, though thankfully its chances are pretty much zero. His stance on stem cell research isn't encouraging, and I'm troubled by his recent mutterings about ID. These are secondary concerns for me, though, and I think we'll work them out correctly in the long run, so I'll accept those drawbacks to get a president who is closest to my position on the most important issue for me, national security.

Though I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush quite happily.

 

[clk]

He lied UNDER OATH! I'm sorry if that is too subtle and nuanced for your understanding. We are a nation of laws and not of men. Hopefully we are capable of understanding and have a sense of proportionality. But lying under oath is a serious offence regardless of the reason one does so. You and I agree that he should not have been impeached but come on, have the back bone to admit that lying under oath is not something to be taken lightly. Everyone who does so has justification and reason for doing so. It doesn't make it ok.

Who said it was OK? Where did I say it should be taken lightly? I only insinuated that whether the President lies under oath OR NOT, he should be held to the same standard when his claims are dealing with such a serious matter.

Yes, that's right, keep repeating the mantra. Someday the very repeating of it will make it true.

I've already proven that Bush lied. Me repeating it doesn't make it any more true than me repeating: "1+1=2" makes it true. The facts speak for the truth of my statement.

 

[RandFan]

Who said it was OK? Where did I say it should be taken lightly?

I can only infer meaning from your words.

Clinton lies about sex, and all hell breaks loose.

Sorry if I was wrong.

I've already proven that Bush lied.

Oh really? Please to show me?

 

[MarksSock]

Yeah, I know, I just like making you work for it.



Alright.

In the leadup to the war, I think Bush didn't do a very good job at explaining why Iraq mattered beyond just the WMD question. I think the overemphasis on that made us vulnerable. I also think he should have made it more clear that it wasn't simply his current stockpile that was the problem, but that there was no other way to ensure he could never rearm in the future. He did this a bit, but not enough. I also think he should have been more explicit about what it was costing (in terms of dollars, strain on allies keeping them behind us, and on the Iraqis themselves) to maintain the sanctions and no fly zones. It was easy to get the impression that maintaining the status quo was cheap, but it wasn't. And lastly, regarding the WMD case, there's one misrepresentation that I place squarely on the administration's shoulders and not on bad intelligence, and that was the aluminum tubes thing. They got conflicting advice, and they shouldn't have gone with the CIA's assessment just because it backed their argument. So that's my criticism of Bush in the leadup to the war.

For the invasion itself, I have the feeling that we missed opportunities to get Turkey on board. Being able to strike through Turkey would have helped us immensely, and would have made it much harder for the Ba'athists to fall back to establish staging grounds for the subsequent insurgency. We missed an opportunity there, though in fairness it's not obvious to me exactly what we could have done that would have gotten Turkey to let us through.

In the wake of the invasion, we were slow to establish security, and were caught off guard by the strength of the insurgency. Reconstruction efforts have been significant and helpful, but not optimal. For example, CERP, a program which allows commanders at the street level to allocate small cash spending for whatever opportunities might come up (to pay for small reconstruction projects, to buy goods from the locals, whatever), has been incredibly effective for the amount of money allocated for it, but it took too long to really take off. At times we've been too cautious about going after insurgents: we should have finished Fallujah the first time around (spring 2004), and we should have taken Sadr down completely as soon as his goons started shooting.

But despite all the problems, I think it was worth it. Which is why I support Bush on Iraq, even though I think he has made mistakes.

On the domestic front, well, there's PLENTY I disagree with Bush about. I think the marriage ammendment is monumentally stupid, though thankfully its chances are pretty much zero. His stance on stem cell research isn't encouraging, and I'm troubled by his recent mutterings about ID. These are secondary concerns for me, though, and I think we'll work them out correctly in the long run, so I'll accept those drawbacks to get a president who is closest to my position on the most important issue for me, national security.

Though I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush quite happily.

Thanks for the thorough response. I'll only go over the points I disagree with if you want me to (since you can probably guess anyway).

 

[MarksSock]

It was not our intention that innocent Iraqi people die as a result of the invasion. However we must accept responsibility for those deaths. On balance is a people that have had an opportunity to vote and are no longer under the oppression of a murderous dictator and his two barbaric sons. Little consolation for those who have lost their lives but then not doing anything would have been little consolation for those who suffered and died under Saddam. And they were suffering but then that is conveniently ignored by those who criticize the decision to invade.

I submit that being murdered by an evil dictator, or being murdered by terrorists make no difference to the dead or their families. Which is worse, living under a dictator or living under violent anarchy? I'm sure I don't know. And neither do you.

And I point out again, that by the time we invaded, Hussein already had his teeth pulled. His genocide against the Kurds was 12 years old.

 

[Ziggurat]

Who said it was OK? Where did I say it should be taken lightly? I only insinuated that whether the President lies under oath OR NOT, he should be held to the same standard when his claims are dealing with such a serious matter.

This is simply not a tennable position. Presidents have to be able to lie on occasion, it is sometimes an absolute necessity (for example: "No, we don't have any spies in Iran. Honest."). Evaluating the seriousness, as well as the justification, for a lie is generally a subjective judgment, and it's a bad idea in general to involve the law in subjective judgments. There is, after all, a political remedy already in place: the democratic process by which people are allowed to express their subjective judgments. But what you're proposing here is really nonsense. You're upset because you feel Bush lied (no universal agreement on that point), and you're not happy with the available remedies. But can you HONESTLY lay down a set or workable, objective rules by which we can establish when it is or is not acceptable for a President to lie, who is supposed to make that determination (good luck figuring out THAT problem), and what exactly the consequences should be? I don't think you've thought this through at all, because if you had, you'd realize that the only remedies are worse than the problem. And they'd probably need constitutional ammendments too, because I can't see how you could otherwise restrict the President's right to lie more than anyone else's.

 

[RandFan]

I submit that being murdered by an evil dictator, or being murdered by terrorists make no difference to the dead or their families. Which is worse, living under a dictator or living under violent anarchy? I'm sure I don't know. And neither do you.

And I point out again, that by the time we invaded, Hussein already had his teeth pulled. His genocide against the Kurds was 12 years old.

But the oil for food program was a farce and people were starving and there was no medicine. Saddam and his sons were still cruel and young men were still disappearing never to be seen again.

Which is worse, living under a dictator or living under violent anarchy? I'm sure I don't know. And neither do you.

There was no hope under Saddam. I would always choose hope. I think there is now as tenuous as that hope might be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for the thorough response. I'll only go over the points I disagree with if you want me to (since you can probably guess anyway).

You're obviously welcome to if you want, but no, I don't think there's a pressing need for that in this thread.

Edited for clarity.

 

[clk]

I can only infer meaning from your words.

Here's what I said: "I think it is ridiculous that you have to tell a lie under oath to get impeached". I was clearly implying that even if the President is not under oath, that should not give him extra freedom to lie.

Oh really? Please to show me?

OK, this is the 3rd or 4th time on this thread that I'm posting this, but that's alright.

In February 2003, Bush knew that his intelligence was garbage, that the weapons inspectors had found nothing, and at that point, there was a good chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD.

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'

While diplomatic maneuvering continues over Turkish bases and a new United Nations resolution, inside Iraq, U.N. arms inspectors are privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases.

U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another.

# Example: satellite photographs purporting to show new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. When the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing."

# Example: Saddam's presidential palaces, where the inspectors went with specific coordinates supplied by the U.S. on where to look for incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing."

# Example: Interviews with scientists about the aluminum tubes the U.S. says Iraq has imported for enriching uranium, but which the Iraqis say are for making rockets. Given the size and specification of the tubes, the U.N. calls the "Iraqi alibi air tight." So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."

Yet, even when he knows that his intelligence is bunk, Bush goes on the air in March and states:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
-Bush March 03

Now, he damn well knew that there were some very serious doubts about whether Saddam possessed WMD, and he knew that a large part of the "intelligence gathered by this" government was false. So for him to go on the air and make the statement above at the very least makes him dishonest. I call it a lie. He knew that he had to claim "no doubt", because if there were doubts about WMD, then his entire case for war would fall apart. And frankly, he knew he could get away with telling a little white lie. He was right.

 

[RandFan]

OK, this is the 3rd or 4th time on this thread that I'm posting this, but that's alright.

Thank you.

In February 2003, Bush knew that his intelligence was garbage, that the weapons inspectors had found nothing, and at that point, there was a good chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD.

Hold the phone. He "knew"? "There was a good chance?" I think it is possible to argue that some people would make that conclusion but not that those were the only conclusions. You are making your arguments in a vacuum relying only on certain bits of intelligence. There was other intelligence.

Yet, even when he knows that his intelligence is bunk, Bush goes on the air in March and states:

So far this is just a claim. I'm still waiting for your "proof".

Now, he damn well knew that there were some very serious doubts about whether Saddam possessed WMD, and he knew that a large part of the "intelligence gathered by this" government was false.

Huh? Could you dispense with the claims and post the proof?

So for him to go on the air and make the statement above at the very least makes him dishonest. I call it a lie.

An argument could be made that he lied about his "doubt". But that does not mean he knew there was no WMD and lied about that. Did he overplay his hand? Did he make a better case than existed? Sure, I buy that.

He knew that he had to claim "no doubt", because if there were doubts about WMD, then his entire case for war would fall apart. And frankly, he knew he could get away with telling a little white lie. He was right.

I'll refer you to Zigg's post above. "A little white lie?" Yeah, presidents do these things. I neither excuse nor condone it. I understand it.

If Bush knew there was no WMD. If all or most of the intelligence pointed to no WMD and bush was on record saying "I know there is no WMD" or if his advisors had come to that conclusion then I would say you have something. As it is Bush is guilty of "puffery" which is believe it or not a legal term.

I'll tell you, I'm convinced that Bush et al really had egg on their face when no WMD was forthcoming. They really bought the idea that Saddam had it hook line and sinker but bear in mind that it was Saddam that was doing the selling that he had it. It was Saddam that would not cooperate and was acting like he was hidding WMD. Is that "good" inteligence? It is what it is and Bush was certain of the WMD as were many experts and leaders.

 

[Orwell]

Who still remembers the British memos that were leaked a few months ago?

 

[RandFan]

Who still rememebers the British memos that were leaked a few months ago?

Yes, and they can be argued to demonstrate that regime change was the chief motivator for the war and the inteligence for WMD was weak. But then I think most of believed this prior to the leak. I never understood what all of the hoopla was about. This doesn't mean Bush knew there was no WMD. On the contrary it seems quite clear that he believed there was.

 

[RandFan]

Secret papers show Blair was warned of Iraq chaos

Duh, George H. W. Bush warned of Iraq chaos. That was his justification for not going to Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

 

[Orwell]

Yes, and they can be argued to demonstrate that regime change was the chief motivator for the war and the inteligence for WMD was weak. But then I think most of believed this prior to the leak. I never understood what all of the hoopla was about. This doesn't mean Bush knew there was no WMD. On the contrary it seems quite clear that he believed there was.

Must have been one of them faith based initiative thingies, eh?

 

[RandFan]

Must have been one of them faith based initiative thingies, eh?

 

[clk]

Hold the phone. He "knew"?

I am assuming, of course, that his advisors briefed him on the fact that the weapons inspectors had visited the sites where Saddam supposedly had WMD, and that they told him that the inspectors had found nothing. If Bush was not briefed, then the situation is worse than I imagined...maybe Bush didn't lie, but his advising team is incredibly incompetent.

"There was a good chance?" I think it is possible to argue that some people would make that conclusion but not that those were the only conclusions. You are making your arguments in a vacuum relying only on certain bits of intelligence. There was other intelligence.

The inspectors visited hundreds of sites in Iraq, many of which we claimed contained WMD. When the inspectors arrived, they found nothing. Conclusion: the intelligence was false.

So far this is just a claim. I'm still waiting for your "proof".

Huh? Could you dispense with the claims and post the proof?

Read the article. The inspectors visited site after site where we claimed Saddam had WMD, and they found nothing. This disproved our intelligence. Even David Kay, the man who spent 7 months scouring Iraq for WMD said: "We have found no actual weapons of mass destruction that exist at this point". So Bush knew that a large part of his main intelligence was flat out wrong. You would think that he would also start doubting his other intelligence, but I guess that's too much to ask.

An argument could be made that he lied about his "doubt". But that does not mean he knew there was no WMD and lied about that. Did he overplay his hand? Did he make a better case than existed? Sure, I buy that.

This would be like me saying that Clinton didn't really lie about sex, because when he said he didn't have sexual relations, he honestly believed sexual relations did not include a BJ. I could claim that, but I know I would be kidding myself.

If Bush knew there was no WMD. If all or most of the intelligence pointed to no WMD and bush was on record saying "I know there is no WMD" or if his advisors had come to that conclusion then I would say you have something.

There is no way to prove a negative. But the fact is this: US intelligence said that Iraq had numerous sites that contained WMD. The inspectors visited these sites and more, and they found absolutely nothing, and they even called our intelligence 'garbage'. So when you visit hundreds of these sites and find no WMD, then there are a few logical conclusions you can come to:
1. US intelligence is wrong
2. Seeing as how none of these sites contain WMD, it is a definite possibility that Saddam no longer possesses them.

It was Saddam that would not cooperate and was acting like he was hidding WMD.

Was he not cooperating?

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2002news/12052002/world/1653.htm

BAGHDAD, Iraq — President Saddam Hussein urged the Iraqi people on Thursday to support the new U.N. arms inspections as a welcome opportunity to disprove American allegations that his government still harbors weapons of mass destruction.

In a holiday greeting to Iraqi leaders, Saddam said he agreed to the inspections, in which one of his own palaces was searched, ``to keep our people out of harm's way'' in the face of U.S. threats.

He denounced Washington as an ``unjust, arrogant, debased American tyranny.'' Then, turning to U.S. allegations that Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, he said Iraqis wanted to disprove those claims after a four-year absence of U.N. weapons inspectors from their country.

``Some might claim that we didn't give them a proper chance to resist, with tangible evidence, the American allegations,'' Saddam said.

``We shall provide them with such a chance,'' he said, referring to the round of U.N. weapons inspections that began last week.