Lies and the Presidency
During the three year witch hunt of Clinton which put nearly all progress to a halt, people kept saying that it wasn't about the BJ in the oval office but the fact that he LIED UNDER OATH. He was impeached because he LIED UNDER OATH.
Now we have Bush lying about the nature of the threat that Saddam posed against the US. He lied to start a war. Was it under oath? No. Still, one would think that with the severity of the events that took place because of our trust in his words, this is worse than what Clinton did.
So, which is worse? Lying under oath about a BJ or lying while not under oath to start a war?
Hmm?
I think you all know my answer.
Now we have Bush lying about the nature of the threat that Saddam posed against the US. He lied to start a war. Was it under oath? No. Still, one would think that with the severity of the events that took place because of our trust in his words, this is worse than what Clinton did.
So, which is worse? Lying under oath about a BJ or lying while not under oath to start a war?
Hmm?
I think you all know my answer.
Comments
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That could be a vast escape.....
Fellowship
Originally posted by jimmac
It would seem a lot of people aren't comfortable with the idea of the president lieing to us to get his way. Imagine that.
I don't like it if it is the case.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
"To the best of my ability"
That could be a vast escape.....
Fellowship
hehe, your best post yet.
Originally posted by Anders the White
There is something very wrong in the world when Fellowship starts stealing my jokes.
LOL!! Cheers
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
"To the best of my ability"
That could be a vast escape.....
Fellowship
Originally posted by BR
I think you all know my answer.
Prove Bush Lied ?
I am sure that congress will be waiting with baited breath for your evidence....
So, which is worse? Lying under oath about a BJ or lying while not under oath to start a war?
In a legal sense Clinton lying under oath is "worse" than Bush lying while not under oath.
In a moral sense, Clinton lying about WMD to bomb Iraq and strengthen sanctions is "worse" than Bush lying about WMD to bomb Iraq because the ends were different; Clinton accomplished nothing (no good came of it), Bush ousted Hussein and got rid of sanctions (2 good things). Because those are the two lies you have to compare if you want to be honest about it.
There is also the possibility that the intelligence given to him was flawed or exaggerated. In addition, many here seem to be under the impression that said intelligence is "cut and dry". From what I hear, there is a lot of guesswork involved, possibilities ranging from "extremely high" to "significant" to "low". It's not the exact science people think it is. The administration has said itself it focused on WMD as a justification for war because, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz "it was the one thing everyone could agree on. He went on to talk about the human situation in Iraq, the threat to Israel, etc. There were a multitude of reasons, including the fact that Iraq had targeted and fired on our aircraft thousands of times. The justification for war was overwhelming. From Saddam's complete violation of the 1991 ceasefire, to his lack of cooperation witht he toothless UN, to his violation of the oil for food program....the evidence for it was staggering.
What Bush and Blair may have done wrong is focus on the WMD a bit too much. In fact, going to the UN may have been a mistake. Rumor has it Powell convinced him to go....perhaps Bush was right in his instincts to go it alone after all. Perhaps they should have focused on our planes being targeted, Saddam's open praise of 9/11, Al-Queda, etc.
In any case there is absolutely ZERO evidence Bush lied at this point. I don't believe he and Blair would be that incredibly stupid to think no one would ever find out. Really now...I think they're going to find a shitload of banned weapons and/or present much of the intelligence they had.
My question is: Since many of the Dems are jumping on the "we haven't found the WMD/Bush may have lied" bandwagon, what will happen to them politically if and when we find this stuff? It would be worse for them to be wrong than if Bush turned out to wrong. He could always show the intelligence he had, and simply say he was acting on what he felt was a threat to the American people and American interests abroad. Let's also not forget that members of Congress saw this intelliegence as well, and that Bush subsequently acted under the added authority of a joint Congressional resolution. It's going to be very bad politically if they criticize him and are proven wrong. VERY bad.
Originally posted by ena
Ladies and Gents, if you think GWB went into Iraq without covering his ass, you are out of your tree.
But while Bush may not take the fall for the apparent reasons we went to war in Iraq, someone will. Its either going to be Rummey, the CIA chief, or some other spooks. I dont think you can silent people forever though... well there is one way.
well there is one way.
They go camping with Vince Foster?
Originally posted by SDW2001
this thread is total bullshit.