Bricker, since when is civil perjury a federal offense?
In other words, you were annoyingly wrong about intercontinental drones and now you’re trying to cover your mistake with what I assume you think is a joke.
Maybe, Finagle but here’s the thing: when I exaggerate, nobody dies. See the difference?
And if evidence is found, will you concede gracefully or will you weasel by claiming that “it wasn’t enough to present a threat” or that “the evidence isn’t convincing”?
Do I think he lied?
Well, yes. I think he lied from the beginning. I will not flat out say that Iraq has no weapons of mass distruction, but at the same time I find it to be highly unlikely. Basically, Bush needed a valid reason for going to war, and “they’re a threat to us” is a valid reason, but there was no real proof that Iraq was a threat. We didn’t know if they had weapons, we only knew that there are unaccounted weapons. Bush pretty much assumed that Saddam was hiding the weapons.
Funny, the war started as “The disarmament of Iraq” and then it promptly switched to “Operation: Iraqi Freedom”
One could reason that this switch was due to a presidential fear. If he knew that weapons could never be found, then it would make him the bad guy of the world. A war caused by a blantant lie. Therfore, a shift in the nature of the war would provide a security.
Now the president admits that such weapons may never be found in Iraq.
Also, I heard that many documents that “prooved” the existance of weapons and supplies to make weapons were forged, and poorly forged at that. Papers “signed” by Iraqi leaders who have been out of office since the late 1980’s, and yet the document is dated 1999.
I think that it is a very real possibility that Bush made up this whole “Iraq has weapons of mass distruction” pretext in order to start a war.
Why he would start this war, I do not know…
I think this announcment from Bush just the next progression in the story… I think Bush is slowly and steadily trying to tell the people that there are no weapons in such a way that the average person would not think twice about what Bush said.
All in all, Bush = Worst US President EVER
I t doesn’t matter any more if WMDs are found. The point is we already know that Bush was dishonest about the quality of the intelligence that he used as his pretense for an invasion. His information, plainly, was shit. Anything he finds now will be a result of blind luck. It will not vindicate him in any way.
Hmmm…facing an apparent declining economy and some rather bad missteps in international relations could be a case of ‘Wag the Dog’. At least if you want to be cynical about it (which I more and more am).
He could have started the war to draw attention away from the economy, or to boost the economy.
But can you say that is why Bush started the war? Not for sure…
He could have started the war to take some oil, but can you say that is why Bush started the war? Not for sure…
He could have started the war for some bizzare christian reason, to follow some kind of strange moral compass, but again we do not know if that is why he started the war.
What I ment to say is “I have heard many different ideas on why Bush started the war, I cannot say for sure which one is true.”
Just your already microscopic credibility when it comes to debate. I assume that the reason you’re posting to these threads is to convince people of your viewpoint. But posts full of misinformation, florid rhetoric, * ad hominem * arguments, and childish insults (“fearless misleader”) only convince people that, if genius is pain (as your signature says), then you are in a continual state of bliss.
Exactly. As we speak, pretty much every soldier in the coalition force is either interrogating Iraqi’s for information on wherabouts of weapons, or they are activly searching svery square inch of sand inside and out.
Remember that huge chemicle plant we found? Don’t you think it’s odd that we heard about how it must have been some sort of plant for making terrible weapons, but after its discovery we have heard nothing about it? We take any kind of “evidence” of bio/chem/WMD and inflate it to prodigious proportions, and then make believe that it was never found once we realize that it is nothing.
So what if weapons are found? In all honesty and in all reality, we did not know if Iraq had weapons. Bush only (at the VERY best) suspected it, and played on it as if he knew for sure there were such weapons in Iraq. In the end, he used this to start a goddamn war, and no (as nearly as I can tell) he is trying to drop the initial excuse for going to war.
I wouldn’t be surprised that, by the time all American troops are out of Iraq, that nothing will be mentioned about bio/chem/WMD. The focus given by the government will be “Iraqi freedom, focus on the freedom.”
Again, I think there is a small chance of finding weapons, but at the same time that does not stultify any of my argument nor does it justify starting the war.
Bush’s real motives (IMNSHO):
Provide the appearance of a victory in the “war on terror,” diverting attention away from the failure to find bin Laden.
Allows Shrub to kill a surrogate boogey man for OBL.
(Maybe) will jump start a moribund economy, which was greatly damaged by Bush’s massive tax give away to the rich.
Provides fat contracts for Bush family cronies and Dick Cheney in post war Iraq.
Makes Shrubya look like a tough guy, hopefully people will forget all about that desertion thing during Nam.
What it all really boils down to is getting the Smirk re-elected.
I think all of those are very real possibilities.
Also, I think that we wil be in another military engagment come re-election time. Bush will plea to the people “you need me in office so I can take care of this” which sill sucker people into voting for him.
Already I have seen on the news people who say “Bush has done an excellent job and I will surly vote for him”
Do you people completely fail to learn from your past mistakes? To even consider voting for Bush again is sheer maddness.
One thing that I haven’t seen addressed is this:
Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that George W. Bush was on the up-and-up, and that before the war started, Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program, and had already amassed massive caches of nerve gas and anthrax and maybe a Popeli Pocket Nuke or two. Furthermore, let’s say that two days before the war began, Saddam Hussein gets completely chickenguano and decides – “Nah, I won’t use my WMDs when the Americans invade, I’ll destroy it all instead.” So he orders all his Sooper Sekrit Elite Repubbican Guardsmen to burn, maul, mangle, and explode every bottle of VX, every vial of anthrax, and every Popeli Pocket Nuke he’s got.
Then the U.S. invades anyway, soldiers go stompin’ around Iraq, and find no WMDs.
The question is this: even if Saddam had an active WMD program and destroyed all of his WMDs before the war started, how come we haven’t found any of the infrastructure from his WMD program? IIRC, VX isn’t something you can cook up in a broom closet – you need a pretty big facility, with fairly specialized equipment, to do the job. Ditto for anthrax, and doubly ditto for nukes. Even if we can’t find sixty trillion liters of nerve gas, we should be able to find the burned-out husk of a former nerve gas factory, right? Or a hastily-demolished nuclear refinery faciliy? Or whatever it is overeager dictators use to make WMDs?
Bu, AFAIK, we haven’t found any of those, either. And while the war hawks have been furious backpedaling to explain the lack of WMDs found in Iraq so far, I’m curious if they can explain the lack of WMD-manufacturing evidence in Iraq, too…
Another thing I find amusing about the whole idea that Saddam had WMD, and was gonna use them on us! The American People! We must Invade! is that he didn’t use them. If he had them, he just got his country invaded, taken away from him, he might have gotten killed, his administration has been imprisoned, and he didn’t use his WMD.
Which means the man is a freaking saint. Talk about turning the other cheek, Saddam must have cheeks like Pavarotti’s to be able to face getting a whole country pulled out from under him while refraining from using the weapons he’d theoretically spent a fortune developing in case of just such a scenario.
So, either he didn’t have the weapons, and he wasn’t really a thread. Or he wouldn’t use the weapons, no matter how deadly the threat to himself or his regime, and he wasn’t really a threat.
So, who do you want to invade next? I’ve got a printer and Microsoft Word Pad; wanna bet we can put together some incriminating evidence on any country on the planet?
Well, yes, of course, I am a poltroon, a scoundrel and a despoiler of maidens. How this in any way bears on the argument at hand escapes me. But I beg to be spared from further demonstrations of your scathing wit, lest I be forced to repair to my bed with my banky to cry myself to sleep, yet again.
Well, Bricker may be along soon to reply in more detail, but it looks to me like the federal perjury offence doesn’t make any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. The general offence is found at 18 USC 1621, which reads:
There’s also a more specific offence of knowingly making a false statement before a grand jury: 18 USC 1623, which I think is what the allegation against Clinton was - that he knowingly made a false statement in the videotape deposition he gave to the grand jury investigating the matter. (Disclaimer: If I’m wrong on that point, please don’t interpret it as me being part of any great conspiracy, or having a partisan axe to grind, or not yet over the 2000 election. I’m just going on memory from four years ago.)
A call from POTUS to Director, CIA.
"George! This is George! Hows the missus? Fine, fine.
The reason I’m calling George, its about this whole WMD thing…Yes, it is kind of a mess, that’s why…yes, I know you did, George, you made that pretty clear, you thought maybe Saddam didn’t really…well, now, I don’t think you were quite that explicit, George, you got a cite for that?..Before Congress? On what date? Slow down, George, I’m writing this out for Karl…Karl says we can probably airbrush that out, George…well, you see, George, we kind of need to circle the wagons here, you know, protect the President, for the good of the country and…well, now, “fall on your sword” is a bit strong…There is no “I” in “team”, George…Now, I don’t want to get tough here, George, but I am your boss and I can fire you…I don’t think “double dog dare you” is any kind of way to talk to the President, George…tapes? What tapes?..Listen, George, lets just forget the whole thing…well, you don’t have to get snippy about it…Look, lets do lun…George? George?"
I’m pretty sure this only pertains to federal proceedings (i.e. "law of the United States = federal law) but I am open to correction here. Also, I’m pretty sure that Clinton didn’t lie in his grand jury testimony. I know he admitted the bj at least. So what were they alleging that he lied about?
Yes, it only applies to federal proceedings, but President Clinton was summoned before a federal grand jury by Special Prosecutor Starr. The allegation was that he perjured himself in his federal grand jury testimony, in particular by not telling the truth about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and on three other points as well.
Here’s the relevant passage from the first Article of Impeachment:
Gosh, has it really been five years? good times, good times… 