Have your views changed on WMD?

[rikzilla]

Talk about spin. You are about to torque yourself right up there with King of Spin Bill O'Reilly.

How so? Actually I'm spinning nothing, just being very straight -forward and honest. You're having some trouble handling it. I don't know why, I'm just giving you my unadulterated POV.

I'm dropping out. Your position is clear and unwavering and can be summarized this way.

Lying is okay with you as long as it supports causes you like, otherwise it's not okay. End of discussion.

Yes. That is exactly correct. To be more specific, I would not support a bad liar even if I agreed with his reasons for lying. In my book bad liar=bad politician. It is not okay to have as one's leader a bad politician. I'll even go so far as to say an unlucky politician is also unsupportable. Any leader fighting for his political life (as Bill Clinton, or Richard Nixon did) is useless in furthering their agenda. They will waste all their political capitol just staying in office.

You have dismissed me rather simply by saying I think lying is okay, so let me ask this of you;

Do you think it is ever permissible for a President of the United States to lie?

Be very careful answering that one David. One answer means you're an idealistic idiot, the other answer makes you dismiss yourself along with old rikzilla.

-z

 

[DavidJames]

.

I'm spinning nothing, just being very straight -forward and honest. You're having some trouble handling it. I don't know why, I'm just giving you my unadulterated POV

I have no objection to you stating your "straight -forward and honest...unadulterated POV". However, you are painting the facts in colors drawn from your personal political palette. When you deny that, you are being disingenuous.

Do you think it is ever permissible for a President of the United States to lie?

I fully expected that weasel (have you stopped beating your wife) question. Why? because you don't like the corner you're in and are looking for an out. Sorry, but you cannot escape that easily. You need to defend your stated position, not the strawman (straw man ) you propose

 

[Lurker]

President Reagan actually broke laws in circumventing Congress to provide arms to the Contras. Far more agregious than making a mistake based on faulty intel. Personally I'm glad he did that, but that's just me. Sometimes the ends actually do justify the means.

-z

What the....?! Rik, while I usually disagree with you I think you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. But this one threw me.

By your logic, why should we have laws at all? Or better yet, pass a Constitutional amendment that says the president is above the law. My god, man. You are supporting tyranny here!

Lurker

 

[Tricky]

What the....?! Rik, while I usually disagree with you I think you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. But this one threw me.

By your logic, why should we have laws at all? Or better yet, pass a Constitutional amendment that says the president is above the law. My god, man. You are supporting tyranny here!

Likewise, Lurker. Rik is not usually a foaming-at-the-mouth type conservative, but every now and then, when his pet theory is attacked or someone has offended his honor, he can as over-the-edge as any. When I saw him trotting out the old "It's a worse lie because he was under oath" position, I realized, this is one of those times. But don't worry. He always recovers.

 

[peptoabysmal]

You have no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq. Thus he is mistaken, not lying.

Totally agree. George Tenet has admitted the blame for the paragraph in question. Whether or not you have your own conspiracy theory on the subject is a different matter. There has been no proof offered that Bush was intentionally lying.

At the time that Dubya made those claims as justification for the war in Iraq, only the African uranium purchase attempt was in question. The world agreed on the rest of the points.

What has been found in Iraq certainly doesn't measure up to what almost the entire world, including the U.N., believed Saddam had at the time ... go figure. Saddam was a dictator in a totally closed society and was not living up to his binding cease-fire commitment of accounting for those weapons. The fault lies with Saddam, and no one else. If anyone truly believes Saddam was behaving himself the last few years, I wish them good luck trying to raise children. The wool can be easily pulled over their eyes.

What we should be worrying about is if there is any truth to the reports that there were WMD and those weapons were smuggled into Syria in ambulances.

 

[rikzilla]

What the....?! Rik, while I usually disagree with you I think you are one of the more reasonable conservatives here. But this one threw me.

By your logic, why should we have laws at all? Or better yet, pass a Constitutional amendment that says the president is above the law. My god, man. You are supporting tyranny here!

Lurker

Lurker,

Please try and understand. I do not support tyranny. I merely recognise that politicians lie. It's a fact, and one point upon which all politicians are equal. They all lie. Because I'd rather have my particular liar in office does not mean I support tyranny! Besides, if I supported tyranny, then why should I have ever spoken out against Saddam in the first place?

What I support is a leader that I can respect for getting the job I want done, done. Simply that. Personally I disliked Reagan for dealing with the Iranians. To deal with terrorists is to reward terrorism. However, I utterly supported his elegant end-around in sending the untraceable proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras. It made me sick to see the way the Dem controlled Congress fawned over Daniel Ortega. Reagan was a bit of a cynical opportunist, he was also the best most effective president we've had in recent history.

OTOH, I loved Jimmy Carter. He was a good man. My first ever vote for President went to Mr. Carter. I still admire him. He was perhaps the most honest human being we've ever had as President....and he was also the very worst President whose admin I've had the misfortune to live through.

My conclusion is that great humanitarians and scrupulously honest people should not become President. They tend not to be very effective. Effectiveness with the awesome power of that office is more important than anything else. Period.

So Lurker, I'm sorry if I disappointed you. I've been sorry in the past to disappoint Tricky but just can't help it. I do like you and Tricky and I think I understand you both quite well, and appreciate your honesty...as I appreciate what Mr. Carter stands for. But the real world just isn't so neat and tidy that lies need never be told. My question to David was completely in earnest. It was not a "have you stopped beating your wife" type question.

Do you think it is ever permissible for a President of the United States to lie?

He chose not to answer. I never required a yes or no, he is the one who set himself up by suggesting that presidents must not lie. The honest answer to this (and I hope you agree) is that sometimes, for some reasons good or bad, presidents do lie...and that if you were to place this impossible requirement upon the man you would have be president you would wander the world aimlessly like Diogenes, searching the night for that proverbial honest man.

My way of looking at this is to forgive my president his lies if he does so in the best interests of the country. I will not ever forgive lies told by the president that are in the best interest of his own ass. This is the major reason I despise both Clinton and Nixon. If Bush is ever caught in such a self-serving lie then I promise you I will myself denounce him. So far I have no problem with Mr. Bush. I honestly feel he was mistaken about WMD, as were the leading members of the Clinton admin....but even if he actually "sexed up" the evidence, he will be forgiven by me. He was instrumental in removing Saddam....that in my opinion was a major service to the US and the world. No matter how you cut it.

Sure I believe in the rule of law, but strick adherrence does allow small injustices to occur. OJ Simpson comes to mind. As does evidence thrown out of court due to illegal search/seizure. These things have to happen in a court of law to protect the process. However, you cannot fight a war, or conduct national security/foreign policy like that.

Aw well, I'll likely never win a popularity contest with you guys. But I do hope you'll try to understand my position as I understand yours. If we ever meet at TAM X someday I'd hope that we could end up as firends. If you guys seriously think I'm a grand supporter of tyranny though, I doubt we could.

-z

 

[Tricky]

See? I told you he'd be better soon.

 

[rikzilla]

See? I told you he'd be better soon.

Being bi-polar can be such fun! Ask Howard Dean!



-z

 

[Tricky]

Being bi-polar can be such fun! Ask Howard Dean!

Next time you are experiencing a personality reversal, get one of those instant cameras and take before and after pictures.

Then you can have bipolaroids.

 

[Lurker]

Rik:

Thanks for the clarification. To answer your question, I think all presidents lie to us. But I do expect them to obey the law. There is no law against lying, is there? So if a president lies to keep something secret for national security I understand. I would hope he keeps it to a minimum, of course.

But breaking the law seems inappropriate. If Reagan wanted to deal with the Contras then why not bring it up before Congress and see what can be done? That is democracy. Reagan should have pushed to get the Boland amendment repealed. That is my opinion.

Lurker

 

[rikzilla]

Rik:

Thanks for the clarification. To answer your question, I think all presidents lie to us. But I do expect them to obey the law. There is no law against lying, is there? So if a president lies to keep something secret for national security I understand. I would hope he keeps it to a minimum, of course.

But breaking the law seems inappropriate. If Reagan wanted to deal with the Contras then why not bring it up before Congress and see what can be done? That is democracy. Reagan should have pushed to get the Boland amendment repealed. That is my opinion.

Lurker

..and you're entitled to it. It's a very reasonable position. Certainly more reasonable than mine. Perhaps it's just that my cynicism has reached a terminal stage?

In my youth I was very idealistic...once that bubble was burst cynicism took over big time. I was also anti-Reagan during most of his two terms...but in the end I could not argue with his results. You ever hear of those "Reagan Democrats" of the 80's?? In the end, I was one of them.

-z

 

[Andonyx]

They lied because they knew the people of the US wouldn't go for their schemes otherwise.

Our Presidents aren't meant to be kings.

No they're not, but what you're suggesting is even worse.

They lied so they could deliberately do something they knew the American public did not want them to.

They lied in order to get away with something that was directly related to the performance of their duties as a leader and without that office would not have been possible, which is of course the worst possible abuse of the highest office.

I was even giving them more credit than that.

 

[Tricky]

Just want to revisit this for a minute. For Rik and others that believe that the ends justify the means, you should be aware by now how difficult it is to maintain law and order in Iraq. There are crazies of every faction and fairly well armed. One way to do this is to brutally put down every bit of opposition. If your sole aim is maintaining order, then one would have to argue that Saddam was doing a much better job than the coalition forces are doing. He was very much into the "ends justify the means" school of thought.

 

[clk]

Hey rik,
You claim that there is "no proof that GWB did not believe there to be WMD's in Iraq." OK, let's assume that you're correct and that GWB actually thought Iraq had WMDs. Now, wouldn't you agree that the 9/11 attacks, coupled with the failure of our intelligence agencies to find out that Iraq did not have WMDs before the war resulted in the two largest intelligence failures in the last several decades? And that these two failures led to 3,000 US civilian deaths and a war that killed 10,000 Iraqis along with 500 US soldiers? Why aren't you faulting Bush for not revamping the country's entire intelligence network? Has he done anything at all to insure that these mistakes don't happen again? I think that Bush hasn't done anything because he knew there were no WMDs. He picked selective evidence that said Iraq had WMDs while ignoring other intelligence so that he could go to war with Iraq.

 

[crocodile deathroll]

To come to think of it, it did change a bit, but you do expect that. I was sure they would of at least found a few rusty old neglect shells buried in the middle of the desert or hidden under a pile of junk somewhere in a basement or warehouse. That is what I expected to happen by now and even if they found that, that was no real justification for the war.
Old negected WMDs about the best they can hope for now, as that can now forget about those elleged sophisticated weapons programs, no new WMD stockpiles.


CDR

 

[a_unique_person]

Looks like Colin Powells views have changed. Maybe that is part of the reason he is bailing out.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/25/1074965419600.html

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said today that it was an "open question" as to whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but insisted pre-war intelligence had been correct about Baghdad's intention to develop them.

Powell was responding to comments by David Kay, who stepped down yesterday from leading the US hunt for Iraq's illicit weapons and said that he thought no such arsenal had existed at the start of the US-led war in March 2003.

"What is the open question is how many stocks they had if any, and if they had any where did they go? And if they didn't have any, why wasn't that known beforehand?" Powell told journalists travelling with him from Washington to the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

Responding to criticism of pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons, Powell said US analysts were "correct with respect to intention, with respect to capability to develop such weapons, with respect to programs".

 

[Tricky]

Looks like Colin Powells views have changed. Maybe that is part of the reason he is bailing out.

Colin Powell said:
Responding to criticism of pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons, Powell said US analysts were "correct with respect to intention, with respect to capability to develop such weapons, with respect to programs".

That is correct, sir. We have satellite photos of their intentions.

 

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Tricky We have satellite photos of their intentions.

I've been wondering:

If we could show evidence in those satellite photos before the war, how come we didn't keep on taking pictures to keep track of all those stockpiles during the war?

Why was it easier to 'find' the WMDs from space than from the ground?

 

[sorgoth]

Before the war, I thought the reports were vastly exagerated, but Saddam probably did have enough to pose a threat.


Now... There weren't any WMD. It was all a lie.

 

[Crossbow]

I've been wondering:

If we could show evidence in those satellite photos before the war, how come we didn't keep on taking pictures to keep track of all those stockpiles during the war?

Why was it easier to 'find' the WMDs from space than from the ground?

The reason why they could not track the said stockpiles was because they lied about the said stockpiles in the first place.

There was no evidence (satellite photos or otherwise) that showed Iraq had WMDs prior to the war. It was known however that Iraq did have WMDs in the past, so they simply assumed that Iraq still had WMDs which would be found in short order once Iraq was invaded.

Go figure!