I couldn’t believe nobody beat me to it. “Lame duck” was the first thing I thought of when I read your thread title.
Well, sort of. You still have to get a court order or a warrant, so it is hardly a sweeping revocation of the Bill of Rights.
If you want to define any instance in which it becomes somewhat easier to get court orders as the jack-booted thugs dragging innocents off to the death camps, I can’t stop you, but I also can’t agree with you. The Patriot Act does not authorize the government to read our e-mail at will, or listen to our phone conversations at will, so I don’t think the Ashcroft quote above really speaks to the issue.
If you were thinking about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, CNN reported last September that this had never been used.
From your cite:
The Rumsfeld v. Padilla case is rather similar. The Supreme Court held in Ex Parte Quirin that the government was not limited to declaring as “enemy combatants” only those captured on the battlefield, holding that “Citizens who associate themselves with the the military arm of the enemy government, and… enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents”. Cite.
So it doesn’t seem exactly as cut and dried as you might imagine. Or even completely new.
The problem is the word, “intentional”. Intentional misinformation is the same as lying. Unintentional misinformation is a mistake. Mistake != lie.
Actually, I don’t think he would have been damned if he did if he didn’t make it so clear, by his wag-the-dog timing, that he was perfectly willing to use Iraq as a distraction.
Bush doesn’t seem to have been afraid of being accused of wagging the dog by invading Iraq. Afghanistan either, but only the furthest of the far Left is going to make accusations against him when he smashed the Taliban.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, the Supreme Court is yet to make its decision on the two cases that I mentioned. I believe that one will be heard April 20 and the other April 28.
“Enemy Combatants” is a new catagory that the Bush Administration came up with that would allow them to avoid both Constitutional requirements and the Geneva Conventions. I’m with Amnesty International on this one.
I am aware of the reasons that are being given for not treating them as POWs and for keeping them under lock and key. But that does not negate the fact that they are being denied the right to due process. Please keep in mind that some of the people who were prisoners for two years were released without ever having had charges brought against them. Imagine if that happened to someone in your family. How can that not be a violation?
When you have to totally misrepresent what I have said – to twist it and distort it in order to have something to contend with – then you are doing yourself a disservice.
[quote]
The problem is the word, “intentional”. Intentional misinformation is the same as lying. Unintentional misinformation is a mistake. Mistake != lie.
There is no problem. You seem to understand the meaning of my sentence now:
Given: President Clinton lied.
Given: President Nixon lied.
Given: The Bush Administration was wrong in saying that Iraq posed an immediate danger to our country. They were wrong in saying that those trucks were used as mobile chemical labs.
What is not known by either you or me for certain is whether or not that misinformation was intentional or unintentional.. You probably believe one thing and I believe another. My word choice was appropriate.
Question: How do their lies compare in importance to the wrong information that we were given by the Bush Administration?
Seeing all this back-and-forth on Clinton vs. Bush, I couldn’t help thinking of an article in yesterday’s Globe and Mail about Clinton’s rehabilitated reputation.
It pretty much boils down to “Clinton definitely had some embarrassing moments, but next to the asshole occupying the Oval Office now, he seems more and more like a shining exemplar of good leadership.”
Heh.
I’ll bet when Caligula got into the swing of things, people were a lot more willing to overlook that whole supposed nepocide business of Tiberius’ that they had been so worked up about, too.
Yes. My cite was from the motion of the Justice Department arguing the administration side of the case.
I am not, and the case, as you mention, is by no means settled. Therefore presenting it as if it were a clear-cut case of the Constitution being violated is not absolutely accurate.
Their lies, being deliberate, are much worse.
Especially since the wrong information came not solely from the Bush administration. As I mentioned, everyone and their brother believed Saddam had WMD.
So you still cannot compare a deliberate lie with an inadvertent, and understandable, mistake.
Regards,
Shodan
Except all those folks in the intelligence community who were trying to make the Bushistas understand that sources (like the aptly codenamed Curveball) weren’t being properly vetted, and there was a great deal of doubt regarding a whole lot of specifics, of course. I presume your neglect in not mentioning them was accidental.
Listen you fucking moron, yes, everyone thought Saddam had a warehouse full of some nerve gas past its best before date, and was probably trying maintain the capacity to make some more at some unspecified future time, but nobody had any verified, solid intelligence like Bush repeatedly claimed.
Lying about a sex scandal to maintain electability is politics as usual. Lying to drag a country into a war based on blinkered ideological ignorance is a High Crime and Misdemeanor. Yes, is was a fucking lie, because the President of the United States of America is morally obligated to use the best, most objective, most carefully evaluated evidence available to him when making the case for war. Spouting off a bunch of unconfirmed allegations made by unreliable informants with obvious bias and motivation for feeding you lies is not acceptable. And ignoring the advice of every expert on the Middle East in favour of Cheney’s cadre of pig-ignorant chickenhawks who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them in the ass is gross negligence and incompetence.
That you continue to support those inhuman bastards, who have doomed Iraq to years of anarchy and civil war, when it was bloody obvious to anyone with sufficient intelligence to out-think a duck (had to get that in here somewhere) that the result would be disaster, only demonstrates that you yourself are a bloody inhuman bastard, without the ability to think for yourself, and a morally repugnant being. Now when Turkey and Iran invade after the Kurds declare independence, and the whole fucking region goes up in flames, I suppose you’ll say, “But no one could have expected that.” The hell no one could have. Drooling idiots, the lot of you.
I think ducks have been grossly slandered in this thread!! On behalf of the society for potection of ducks I’ve been asked to make a statement denying that there was NEVER a duck on Dubya’s family tree - or should that have been ‘family shrub’??
Surely it’s obvious that Dubya is the product of a mating between a giant chicken and a dead parrot [well plucked and stuffed before entering politics]? I’m not sure which of his minions is the puppeteer - maybe they take it in turns to stick their hand up his plucked ass and make him move - and speak.
Blair, on the other hand, is the spawn of a parrot and a dog [a very curious mating that must have been] !!!
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
It’s in our constitution, too:
“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.”
Of course, the belief in the value of freedom of expression doesn’t start with your Founding Fathers. It’s been with Western Civilization since it was formulated by certain Athenian philophers some two and a half millennia ago.
It found its modern expression as a core value of the Enlightenment, which was an international movement, which included – but wasn’t limited to – some of the framers of your constitution.
Back to the Enlightenment. It comes down to an idea of social progress – the notion that, with time and thought and debate, we can gradually sort out what is and isn’t a human right. We disagree with some of the things that the Enlightenment thinkers believed precisely because we have applied their method to their assumptions, and decided they were wrong about some things.
It has a corallary in science – we can disagree with much of Newtonian physics, because we’ve applied the same scientific method to his assumptions, and found some of them incorrect. Doesn’t mean his work wasn’t a step in the right direction.
Frankly, given the close-minded stupidity he’s continued to exhibit in his blind support of George W. Bush and his neoconservative insanity, I’m surprised Shodan hasn’t been pitted already. Reading a message from him is like getting a direct feed from Karl Rove’s daily “talking points” after it’s gone through the bull and plopped out of the other end.
I’d do it myself, but I’m still recovering from being hung over all weekend, which I got from listening to Condi Rice’s lying testimony and the revelations of the August 6th PDB…
Well, I did mention both Clintons, who maintained just as surely that Saddam had WMD as Bush ever did. Are you saying that Clinton also deliberately misinterpreted the data? Why didn’t you call for his impeachment?
Well, then perhaps you see the problem.
Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam did not abide by the inspection regime fully. Bush (after 9/11) gave Saddam one more chance. Saddam blew it, and is now history.
Now you are admitting that it was common knowledge that the reason Saddam did not cooperate with the inspection regime was exactly what Bush thought it was - that Saddam was trying to cover up that he did have WMD. In other words, Bush’s conclusions were shared by everyone else on the planet, practically, and cannot be due to misinterpretation of intelligence data, or any of the other stuff you are spouting.
Then I assume you believe that Gore, Clinton, Hilary, Kerry, and so forth, should all have been impeached. Kerry in particular should not be running for President, since he lied so blatantly about Iraqi WMD - in 1997, long before Bush was President.
Unless, apparently, it comes from a Democrat.
Then, as I mentioned, every President since Bush Sr., plus Hilary, Gore, Albright, Kerry, etc., is guilty of “gross negligence and incompetence”. But you don’t ever seem to object to that.
Which leads me to conclude that perhaps the motives for labelling the one a liar and passing over the rest in silence may have motives other than an unflinching desire for the truth.
Which means, as often occurs, you aren’t doing your side any favors by displaying this kind of hypocrisy. As I mentioned in a previous response to Zoe, the Left has no response to any demurral from the repeated BushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLied other than BUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIEDBUSHLIED.
So we have xenophon41, who is willing to deny established facts in his quest to change history to something more to his liking. rjung is trying (apparently) to deny that there were White House memos linking Travelgate to Hilary, or that the head of the office was acquitted of all charges, or something.
Gee whiz, the more hysterically partisan left-wing loonies are willing to depart from reality in their attacks on Bush. Whoda thunk it. 
Blah blah.
Although if Turkey and Iran do not invade, I will expect an apology.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay, now I’m confused. Clinton and Gore started the war in Iraq? I mean, sometimes some stuff gets by me, but I’m sure I would have noticed that.
Really Shodan, I’m not impressed at all. Go back to poring over old Ari Fleischer news conferences till you have the dancing denial down pat and try again.
Well, at least he doesn’t post bad limericks. As well, we might be grateful that Shoddy reminds us, once again, of the grave threat posed by the “Travelgate” affair. I must admit, I have quite lost track of the desperate constitutional crisis posed.
“…was exactly what Bush thought it was - that Saddam was trying to cover up that he did have WMD…”
But he didn’t. You did hear about this, right? It was in all the news. Need a cite?
“…Which leads me to conclude that perhaps the motives for labelling the one a liar and passing over the rest in silence may have motives other than an unflinching desire for the truth…”
We are all appropriately impressed by the grave reluctance with which you were forced to this conclusion.
“…Gee whiz, the more hysterically partisan left-wing loonies are willing to depart from reality in their attacks on Bush…”
Probably so. But those of us on the conservative wing of the extreme left are in the happy position of having facts, dates, documents…that sort of thing. The 'left wing loonies" may indeed try to make the case that GeeDubya is posessed by Pazuzu, but we more moderate types are content to prove that he is incompetent, mendacious, and chucklewitted, with “the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces.”
Let’s give poor Shodan a break – he’s running out of ways to blame Clinton for all the screwups Bush has saddled us with, after all. While the attempts to link the Travelgate hatchet-job to the Iraq war may seem laughably lame on the surface, I interpret it as a desperate cry for help from one of the SDMB’s most ardently clueless Bushistas.
It’s rather pathetic, in a way. Much like Shodan is.
No, Clinton and Gore (and Hilary and Kerry and Albright) all agreed with Bush that Saddam had WMD. Clinton used this as his reason to lob missiles at Iraq, when he was trying not to get impeached.
It seems a lot of stuff gets by you. Possibly if you could actually read posts before you respond to them, you might be less confused.
Or possibly not.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, perhaps in Clinton’s case, Iraq was the tail that “wagged the dog.” In GeeDubya’s case, its the whole damn dog. And the dog has rabies. And has gnawed one of our legs down to the bone, and is eyeing our naughty bits.
Rather a canny metaphor, don’t you think?
-
Lobbing a few missiles != invasion and occupation predicably leading to insurgency and civil war. Consequences matter.
-
Publicly playing up suggestive but suspect intelligence in order to apply diplomatic pressure on Saddam to submit to inspection regimes is not morally comparable to playing up suggestive but suspect intelligence in order to instigate an unnecessary war.
-
I was under the impression that most missile and bomb attacks on Iraq during Clinton’s presidency were ostensibly enforcement of the no-fly zones, and had nothing to do with purported WMD’s. I am, however, disinclined to search for cites on this, and so will not hang anything on the point.
-
Assuming (and let me just say I’m feeling pretty safe about this assumption) that you condemned Clinton’s missile attacks on Iraq as a sleazy attempt to divert attention from his domestic woes, instead of a legitimate response to a serious threat, must also on pain of complete hypocrisy condemn Bush’s wholesale invasion of Iraq, since you obviously don’t believe that Iraq was a serious threat. On the other hand, I, who thought that Clinton’s missile attacks on Iraq (or at least the timing thereof) were a sleazy attempt to divert attention from his domestic woes, am completely free to think that Bush is an evil scumbag without any worries of hypocrisy.
The distinction you seem to be drawing is that it is OK to use Iraqi lives to avoid impeachment, but only if you don’t really achieve your stated goal.
And you seemed to have skipped over that whole pesky “did he lie about Iraqi WMD” part. Did he? Was it so obvious that Iraq did not have WMD that anyone who based military action on the assumption was lying?
Only if you include shooting missiles under “diplomatic pressure”. And defining “diplomatic pressure” as “pressure that doesn’t really accomplish anything”.
Bush invoked one hell of a lot of diplomatic pressure, including UN resolutions. The difference being that when diplomatic pressure didn’t work, he actually followed thru and removed the threat that he (and Clinton and Hilary and Gore and Kerry and etc.) agreed existed.
And, again, if the war was inexcusable, why were the missiles excusable?
A wise choice on your part.
Clinton stated very specifically that he was lobbing missiles at Iraq because he believed Iraq presented a threat because of
Where exactly did you get the notion that I believed Iraq not to be a serious threat? Haven’t you been reading the effing thread?
You are entirely correct - Clinton’s missile attacks on Iraq were a sleazy attempt to avoid impeachment. This is clear for two reasons:
-
Clinton never did anything except for political reasons. He was a sleazy and dishonest politician - killing Iraqis to grab a few popularity points was entirely in character for this particular sociopath.
-
Clinton made no effort to follow up with a genuine attempt to compel Iraq to fulfill her obligations under the 1991 cease-fire. If he had genuinely believed military force was necessary to force this, he would have made some kind of sustained diplomatic (and if necessary, military) pressure to force Saddam to allow the unfettered inspections. He didn’t.
He lobbed a few missiles, not because he gave a damn whether or not Iraqis died or Saddam genuinely posed a threat, but because he thought he could distract the nation into thinking he was a leader. He was hoping for the kind of bounce in the polls that Bush Sr. got during the first Gulf War. It didn’t work, and he dropped the notion without a backward glance.
Bush had the same conviction (that Saddam posed a significant threat to the region and the world), for the same reasons. But Bush genuinely thought this, not just as a matter of political expediency, but because he actually believes in principles. And because 9/11 alerted him to the dangers of international terrorism in a way that the first attacks on the WTC (and the embassy bombings and the attacks on the USS Cole and the assassination attempts on Bush Sr.) did NOT alert Clinton.
The fact that Bush followed up with invasion to really remove the threat shows that he genuinely believed, and cared, about the threat that Iraq posed. The fact that Clinton did not shows that, if he believed, he didn’t care - except as a way to weasel out of impeachment. (That didn’t work either.)
Sorry - the hypocrisy remains entirely on your side.
Regards,
Shodan
Give it up, Gorsnak.
Imagine you’re trying to have a rational conversation with Jack Chick. At some point, you’re going to deviate from the Chick worldview, and Chick will launch into one of his trademark rants about evolution, the Pope, Dungeons and Dragons, whatever. There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, you could say that would convince Chick that, for example, the Pope probably isn’t the actual incarnation of the anti-Christ.
Same with Shodan. Shodan’s particular anti-Christ is Clinton. There’s nothing rational in what Shodan says, and there’s no rational argument that can be made that would convince Shodan that his worldview is bizarre.
Shodan’s a fruitcake. Good for giggles, and not much else.
Oh, I know. It’s amusing to watch him dance, though. Given that he misconstrued every point I made in my last post, though, I’m not overly inclined to keep at it.
Of course, Scylla wouldn’t have a problem with the mental contortions needed for condemning Clinton for firing cruise missiles at Osama Bin Laden (“He’s trying to distract folks from Lewinsky!”) while simultaneously condemning Clinton for not killing Osama Bin Laden (“He’s not fighting the war on terror!”).
The clinical term for someone who thinks like this is “a fucking idiot.”