Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life.
...when you are married, it isn't your private sex life
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton Bush lied to Congress, the UN, and the American people about a matter of national security, massive budget implications and international relations. [/B]
I am always have to smile at people who sincerely believe they are privy to the same material as the president, the NSA, or CIA. I get positively giddy with those who same people who don't know IF or WHEN the PPC970 is coming out trying to tell me they have the "inside track" on geopolitics.
Odd... how does one destroy thousands of tons of deadly chemicals with ZERO evidence of such disposal?
It's possible
Well, considering that they can't find any WOMD, it would seem likely that the WOMD either a) aren't there, b) were there but were destroyed, c) found their way out of the country, or d) there's some slippage between what they had and what they were capable of producing.
Quote:
The administration!?
Yes.
Quote:
The administration put them in that predicament!?
Yes. Was the UN threatening to invade? Did the UN sanction the invasion by the "coalition of the willing"? This admin poked Iraq with a stick until it got the war it wanted.
Quote:
Did you even look at the URL of the link I provided? UN.ORG
Nope. Didn't even see it.
We've had some good and productive exchanges before, Groverat. The rest of this post isn't one of them. Thanks for the link to the UNMOVIC pdf. I'll read it when I get some time.
in cases regarding possible sexual assault, your private sex life with other women in similar situations is not actually private anymore.
Just to be accurate, it wasn't about sexual assault. Jones filed a civil suit against Clinton for propositioning her and then denying it when the story later came out.
I agree that the Bush Administration misrepresented the threat and their own intelligence on the issue. You can say they lied, even, but to extrapolate that out to the entire WoMD being a Bush admin fabrication is just stupid.
FACT: Iraq had a metric assload of illegal weapons unaccounted for. If you don't consider that threatening then that's your business, but others considered it a threat. Threat status isn't a 100% objective measurement.
I'm not allowed to discuss semantics in a thread about someone lying? I'm sorry, jimmac, but that's the entire purpose.
-
sammi jo:
Was Clinton impeached for lying to the US people?
This was an exuse more than a fabrication. I know Saddam had WOMD at one time but not much of a way to deliver them to us in any meaningful way. Like say N. Korea does. However the Bush administration said before the war that they had intelligence that Saddam had these weapons for certain. Certain enough to start a war. So if they were that sure of themselves the WOMD should have been easy to find. This whole thing doesn't wash. I'm sorry but it doesn't.
You can say it doesn't matter. You can say everybody does it. You can say you don't care that they did this. But, I care and so do a lot of other voters.
I would imagine the stakes are a little higher than Clinton's penis as well.
You are still assuming you know what is going on---which, I can assure you, will take many years to sort out. (all things do---this is no different)
So foreign policy is a big and scare place with lot of secret documents and reports that are best kept away from the public so noone is harmed.
And since we can´t possible know what is going on because of our interest in keeping it a secret for ourselfs we can´t possible judge the administration and must assume that they do the right things for the right reasons?
If the Iraqis were as pure as the driven snow, them why the minders? Why the obfuscation? If there was nothing to hide, then why give the inspectors a ration of shite?
Was the oil-for-palaces program THAT good for business?
So foreign policy is a big and scare place with lot of secret documents and reports that are best kept away from the public so noone is harmed.
And since we can´t possible know what is going on because of our interest in keeping it a secret for ourselfs we can´t possible judge the administration and must assume that they do the right things for the right reasons?
Think of it this way: pick any conflict, the Cold War or The Great Game (Britain in the 19th century.) We STILL don't know about ALL the maneuvering that went on, the operatives, the deals etc., etc. Was that ship in the Gulf of Tonkin REALLY attacked?
We generally know what is going on, but for one side to reveal its strategy to the other is FATAL. I just don't think we can resort to cowboy strategies and comic book finishes when approaching this.
Is Bush lying? Maybe. But apparently lying is okay if it?s not serious or for a good cause. Would GWB put the nation in harm?s way for some nefarious cause? We?d better hope and pray that?s not the case.
They ARE NOT going to give away their strategy in any event.
Is Bush lying? Maybe. But apparently lying is okay if it?s not serious or for a good cause. Would GWB put the nation in harm?s way for some nefarious cause? We?d better hope and pray that?s not the case.
Players and hopes doesn´t do it.
So if he lied to start the war I think NOW is a good time to come clean on the reason.
Well, considering that they can't find any WOMD, it would seem likely that the WOMD either a) aren't there, b) were there but were destroyed, c) found their way out of the country, or d) there's some slippage between what they had and what they were capable of producing.
Or e) just haven't been found yet within Iraq.
Most likely a mix of most of those.
Quote:
Yes. Was the UN threatening to invade? Did the UN sanction the invasion by the "coalition of the willing"? This admin poked Iraq with a stick until it got the war it wanted.
Trying to move the goalposts, eh?
Your statement:
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.
I quote Hans Blix:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
02-14-03 - Report to the UN Security Council
Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?
If you had you would know that this "the administration put Iraq in a predicament" talk is garbage.
As far as war, you have a huge-ass PDF linked with questions (very valid and very important questions) that Saddam never intended to answer.
Quote:
Thanks for the link to the UNMOVIC pdf. I'll read it when I get some time.
I'd suggest you ignore it, it might make you rethink the way you look at this "predicament" Iraq was put in.
You want to keep the "BUSH DID IT ALL!" line going, right?
---
jimmac:
Quote:
This was an exuse more than a fabrication.
An excuse to oust one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth...
How sad is the world when we need an EXCUSE to do that?
Quote:
I know Saddam had WOMD at one time but not much of a way to deliver them to us in any meaningful way.
How in God's name do you know that?
At least have the intellectual honesty to make it sound like a hypothesis.
Quote:
You can say it doesn't matter. You can say everybody does it. You can say you don't care that they did this. But, I care and so do a lot of other voters.
You and any other voter who care that strongly hate Bush anyway, so what difference does it make?
My grandparents were going to hate Clinton whether or not he lied about a blowjob, why try to appease zealots?
---
ena:
Quote:
Was the oil-for-palaces program THAT good for business?
Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.
Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
You sound almost as if you're condemning a country for wanting to control Iraq's oil economy. Is this the case or are you going to try and lie your way around this point as well?
Had you actually read the document straight through (as I did when it was first available), you would note that the VAST majority of goals were to tie up loose ends. What a news flash. Maybe you should do yourself a favor and actually read ALL of the UN reports that have come out for the past 12 years, as some of us did long ago, so that you actually have a full view of what is being discussed.
Anyway, hopefully if you ACTUALLY READ THROUGH something, such as the following meta-analysis, maybe you can be a man and stop retreating to fantasy land in an attempt to save face.
P. 19, please, and tell me how much of that is Bush administration lies.
Quote:
Had you actually read the document straight through (as I did when it was first available), you would note that the VAST majority of goals were to tie up loose ends.
So discovering the status/whereabouts of thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons controlled by a brutal dictator is "tying up loose ends". I like how you try to mix your opinion with broken links to unofficial sources.
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress (under oath) about his private sex life.
...when you are married, it isn't your private sex life
Originally posted by tonton Bush lied to Congress, the UN, and the American people about a matter of national security, massive budget implications and international relations. [/B]
I am always have to smile at people who sincerely believe they are privy to the same material as the president, the NSA, or CIA. I get positively giddy with those who same people who don't know IF or WHEN the PPC970 is coming out trying to tell me they have the "inside track" on geopolitics.
This is nitpicky.....
not to worry, that's about all that been left in this thread for the last 10 pages.......
Originally posted by groverat
Without a trace or any proof at all?
Odd... how does one destroy thousands of tons of deadly chemicals with ZERO evidence of such disposal?
It's possible
Well, considering that they can't find any WOMD, it would seem likely that the WOMD either a) aren't there, b) were there but were destroyed, c) found their way out of the country, or d) there's some slippage between what they had and what they were capable of producing.
The administration!?
Yes.
The administration put them in that predicament!?
Yes. Was the UN threatening to invade? Did the UN sanction the invasion by the "coalition of the willing"? This admin poked Iraq with a stick until it got the war it wanted.
Did you even look at the URL of the link I provided? UN.ORG
Nope. Didn't even see it.
We've had some good and productive exchanges before, Groverat. The rest of this post isn't one of them. Thanks for the link to the UNMOVIC pdf. I'll read it when I get some time.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by alcimedes
in cases regarding possible sexual assault, your private sex life with other women in similar situations is not actually private anymore.
Just to be accurate, it wasn't about sexual assault. Jones filed a civil suit against Clinton for propositioning her and then denying it when the story later came out.
Maybe we could work a little evolution-creationism in here, too?
Originally posted by tonton
I don't care what other evidence was shown. He lied about some of it. In an issue far more important to America's future than Clinton's penis.
I would imagine the stakes are a little higher than Clinton's penis as well.
You are still assuming you know what is going on---which, I can assure you, will take many years to sort out. (all things do---this is no different)
By the way---when IS the 970 coming out?
Originally posted by ena
...when you are married, it isn't your private sex life
I agree. Then its a matter between you, your spouse and god, if you are one of those persons.
But noone can claim that when you are married your sex life is the possible subject of a Jerry Springer-like show like that Starr staged.
Is Hillary really a weak woman that need the entire american nation to deal with her and Clintons marital problems?
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:
I agree that the Bush Administration misrepresented the threat and their own intelligence on the issue. You can say they lied, even, but to extrapolate that out to the entire WoMD being a Bush admin fabrication is just stupid.
FACT: Iraq had a metric assload of illegal weapons unaccounted for. If you don't consider that threatening then that's your business, but others considered it a threat. Threat status isn't a 100% objective measurement.
I'm not allowed to discuss semantics in a thread about someone lying? I'm sorry, jimmac, but that's the entire purpose.
-
sammi jo:
Was Clinton impeached for lying to the US people?
This was an exuse more than a fabrication. I know Saddam had WOMD at one time but not much of a way to deliver them to us in any meaningful way. Like say N. Korea does. However the Bush administration said before the war that they had intelligence that Saddam had these weapons for certain. Certain enough to start a war. So if they were that sure of themselves the WOMD should have been easy to find. This whole thing doesn't wash. I'm sorry but it doesn't.
You can say it doesn't matter. You can say everybody does it. You can say you don't care that they did this. But, I care and so do a lot of other voters.
Originally posted by ena
I would imagine the stakes are a little higher than Clinton's penis as well.
You are still assuming you know what is going on---which, I can assure you, will take many years to sort out. (all things do---this is no different)
So foreign policy is a big and scare place with lot of secret documents and reports that are best kept away from the public so noone is harmed.
And since we can´t possible know what is going on because of our interest in keeping it a secret for ourselfs we can´t possible judge the administration and must assume that they do the right things for the right reasons?
If the Iraqis were as pure as the driven snow, them why the minders? Why the obfuscation? If there was nothing to hide, then why give the inspectors a ration of shite?
Was the oil-for-palaces program THAT good for business?
Originally posted by Anders the White
So foreign policy is a big and scare place with lot of secret documents and reports that are best kept away from the public so noone is harmed.
And since we can´t possible know what is going on because of our interest in keeping it a secret for ourselfs we can´t possible judge the administration and must assume that they do the right things for the right reasons?
Think of it this way: pick any conflict, the Cold War or The Great Game (Britain in the 19th century.) We STILL don't know about ALL the maneuvering that went on, the operatives, the deals etc., etc. Was that ship in the Gulf of Tonkin REALLY attacked?
We generally know what is going on, but for one side to reveal its strategy to the other is FATAL. I just don't think we can resort to cowboy strategies and comic book finishes when approaching this.
Is Bush lying? Maybe. But apparently lying is okay if it?s not serious or for a good cause. Would GWB put the nation in harm?s way for some nefarious cause? We?d better hope and pray that?s not the case.
They ARE NOT going to give away their strategy in any event.
Originally posted by ena
Is Bush lying? Maybe. But apparently lying is okay if it?s not serious or for a good cause. Would GWB put the nation in harm?s way for some nefarious cause? We?d better hope and pray that?s not the case.
Players and hopes doesn´t do it.
So if he lied to start the war I think NOW is a good time to come clean on the reason.
Well, considering that they can't find any WOMD, it would seem likely that the WOMD either a) aren't there, b) were there but were destroyed, c) found their way out of the country, or d) there's some slippage between what they had and what they were capable of producing.
Or e) just haven't been found yet within Iraq.
Most likely a mix of most of those.
Yes. Was the UN threatening to invade? Did the UN sanction the invasion by the "coalition of the willing"? This admin poked Iraq with a stick until it got the war it wanted.
Trying to move the goalposts, eh?
Your statement:
You have to admit that it was an unbelievable predicament that the admin put the Iraqis in: prove that they don't have something.
I quote Hans Blix:
Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.
02-14-03 - Report to the UN Security Council
Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?
If you had you would know that this "the administration put Iraq in a predicament" talk is garbage.
As far as war, you have a huge-ass PDF linked with questions (very valid and very important questions) that Saddam never intended to answer.
Thanks for the link to the UNMOVIC pdf. I'll read it when I get some time.
I'd suggest you ignore it, it might make you rethink the way you look at this "predicament" Iraq was put in.
You want to keep the "BUSH DID IT ALL!" line going, right?
---
jimmac:
This was an exuse more than a fabrication.
An excuse to oust one of the most brutal dictators on the Earth...
How sad is the world when we need an EXCUSE to do that?
I know Saddam had WOMD at one time but not much of a way to deliver them to us in any meaningful way.
How in God's name do you know that?
At least have the intellectual honesty to make it sound like a hypothesis.
You can say it doesn't matter. You can say everybody does it. You can say you don't care that they did this. But, I care and so do a lot of other voters.
You and any other voter who care that strongly hate Bush anyway, so what difference does it make?
My grandparents were going to hate Clinton whether or not he lied about a blowjob, why try to appease zealots?
---
ena:
Was the oil-for-palaces program THAT good for business?
Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.
Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
Originally posted by groverat
Tell me, midwinter, have you read *any* of the relevant resolutions or UNMOVIC reports? Any at all?
Not a single one of them says that the U.S. can go to war if Iraq can't prove they've destroyed the supposed weapons. Quit lying.
Originally posted by groverat
Good enough business to keep Saddam in power for a decade and slaughter Iraqis by the million? Bet your ass it was.
Between the two Iraq wars, did Saddam slaughter Iraqis by the millions? Quit lying.
Originally posted by groverat
Good enough business to have certain European and Asian nations screaming bloody murder at the prospect of not controlling Iraq's oil economy? Bet your ass it is.
You sound almost as if you're condemning a country for wanting to control Iraq's oil economy. Is this the case or are you going to try and lie your way around this point as well?
Originally posted by groverat
Unsubstantiated? Have you even been paying attention to the Iraq situation for more than 2 days?
Do you even read the stuff you post? How about anything anyone else posts?
BTW: your link doesn't work
http://mdsme.de/cgi-bin/nph-spinnerp...March%2003.pdf
Had you actually read the document straight through (as I did when it was first available), you would note that the VAST majority of goals were to tie up loose ends. What a news flash. Maybe you should do yourself a favor and actually read ALL of the UN reports that have come out for the past 12 years, as some of us did long ago, so that you actually have a full view of what is being discussed.
Anyway, hopefully if you ACTUALLY READ THROUGH something, such as the following meta-analysis, maybe you can be a man and stop retreating to fantasy land in an attempt to save face.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
Anyway, you've already agreed that the Bush admin lied.
Originally posted by bunge
Quit lying.
But Groverat has already said (and demonstrated) that he thinks lying is OK.
UNMOVIC's official site: click
"Cluster Document" link on left side: click
The "Cluster Document": click
P. 19, please, and tell me how much of that is Bush administration lies.
Had you actually read the document straight through (as I did when it was first available), you would note that the VAST majority of goals were to tie up loose ends.
So discovering the status/whereabouts of thousands of tons of deadly chemical weapons controlled by a brutal dictator is "tying up loose ends". I like how you try to mix your opinion with broken links to unofficial sources.