Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

[Mark & Juanita]

Sorry, if I left you with the wrong impression. I did not think that you were supporting JK, I was simply reinforcing your sarcasm.

[Mark & Juanita]

that should have been "now"

[Jake]

I find it repulsive that an intelligent, educated person could argue that 1000's of people dying is "splitting hairs".

I came into this thread late and have read it from the beginning, and you know what? The dogmatism exhibited here is just mind bending. Those of you that think the "left" is "weak" or that the "right" is "stupid", "Bush is a liar" or "Kerry flip/flops" - you're all missing it. Instead of spending time spouting your uninformed opinions to those who neither hear nor listen, try educating yourselves on what's really going on in this country. It's not hard, it just takes a little effort. Draw your ownconclusions but please do it from an informed basis.

Have I offended anyone? I don't care. Why? Because the only real question we as citizens should be asking is: "Are we willing to send our sons and daughters to die in a far away place when we can't even agree on why they're there?"

As long as we're discussing the pros/cons of Kerry's hair style or whether Bush got a prostate exam when he was s'posed to, we're not discussing the real issues.

Now, excuse me but I have some wood to split, looks to be a long, cold and expensive winter.

(Oh, and while I'm offending people - CW, quit top posting.)

[Al Spohn]

Well, I could always loosen my standards a little if you really insist on electing Bush :-). If you think that anybody that bubbles to the top in Washington does so in the absence of dirty tricks, pandering to corporate interests (democrat and republican,) and otherwise doing whatever it takes to put themselves in a position to "make a difference," you're either terribly naive or are enjoying some form of chemically induced optimism (back away from the table saw :-))

How is it that when Kerry misses a meeting, or lots of meetings, the only possibility is that he's off screwing around wasting tax payers money (mind you, I'm not saying he isn't - I'm just saying the issue is never open to question.) But when Bush is in Crawford or Kennebunkport

27% of the time, he's obviously hard at work?

From an *objective* standpoint, can you tell me why he needs to be in Crawford or Kennebunkport to do his job if it's not to be in a more vacation-like atmosphere? Better satellite coverage in Crawford, maybe? Or perhaps the decision enhancing nutrients inherent in Kennebunkport lobsters?

My suspicion is that Kerry is screwing off some of the time and getting more important work done some of the time when he's supposed to be in meetings. And yes, Bush is probably getting a fair amount of work done between beers in Crawford and Kennebunkport. I just find it ironic for Bush supporters to point at Kerry's attendance record when Bush is setting records for his time away from Washington in places generally acknowledged to be more relaxation retreats than places associated with conducting presidential business.

- Al

[Al Spohn]

Your point is well taken. And in the context of this thread, I think anyone involved with bureaucracy can site tons of meetings where showing up 10% of the time and getting real work done in meantime makes more sense than a consistent attendance record. I don't know enough to say that this is the case with the meetings Kerry is missing (although my experience with the Defense Dept bureaucracy surely makes this a believable possibility,) but I'm saying the concept at least warrants investigation before condemning him.

- Al

[Al Spohn]

In article , dwhite110 @optonline.net says... [...]

Grudging Kerry supporter that I might be, it was still great to see Rather et al take it in the shorts on this issue.

- Al

[Al Spohn]

Right, and Bush is completely above any influence by the polls, obfuscation or political maneuvering. Anyone that is in a position to run for president cannot get there without being a self-serving, self absorbed (and rarely self-made) individual. The question is whether or not the person that gets elected, whether in a moment of boredom or possibly even guilt (unlikely) is ever actually capable of making a decision putting the country's interest ahead of their own. I say that if you elect a person capable of doing that 10% of the time, you have a winner - and that's the best you can expect. The tie-breaking bonus is in finding a candidate whose personal interest happen to coincide with the best interests of the country. Someday I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't think it's going to be this time around. :-)

- Al (self-absorbed, but otherwise lacking the credentials to run for office)

[Al Spohn]

Not really an exact parallel, but a useful point about Japan. I hadn't heard this brought up in this context before.

- Al

[Al Spohn]

Great stuff. I don't think that it's *ever* come to pass that voters had such a choice, though.

- Al

[Al Spohn]

I guess I'd call myself a liberal, and I agree that to say the mainstream press doesn't have a liberal bent is rediculous (with the obvious exception of Fox.) Like I said earlier, political sympathies aside, it was sweet to see CBS/Rather take it in the shorts. Maybe we can look forward to Dateline cooking something up now if they're bored with sabatoging motor vehicles :-)

- Al

[Fred the Red Shirt]

No, not I.

UNMOVIC says they met with no resistance. I simply accept that on its face. Your argument that Iraq had nothing to hide goes well beyond observable fact, because one cannot observe nothing. OTOH, if one searches for chemical weapons, polutant residues in the soil and water, manufacturing facilities, unused feedstocks, and byproducts and finds nothing it is reasonable to conclude that there are no significant stockpiles of WMD becuase the effort required to hide them was clearly beyond the capability of the available infrastructure.

That there were no stockpiles of WMDs was an implication of the UNMOVIC findings.

No. I refute the lie that Iraq resisted UNMOVIC in 2003. Can you show evidence that Iraq resisted UNMOVIC in 2003?

NOT according to IAEA or UNMOVIC. The reports by the IAEA and UNMOVIC to the UN back that up. Can you present anythig to back up your claim?

Non Sequitor.

You are confabulating separable issues. One is the false claim that Iraq resisted UNMOVIC in 2003. That is entirely separate from the claim that Iraq had WMDs.

I did not have to trust Saddam Hussein to argue against the invasion of Iraq.

I did not have to believe that Iraq was free of WMDs to argue against an invasion.

You can Google for my pre-invasion arguments. I'll summarize here:

Nuclear weapons are not in the same class as chemical or biological weapons. a single chemical or biological warhead making it through one's defenses can be expected to do no more harm than a single high explosive shell and is likely to do less. A sigle nuclear warhead making through one's defenses can destroy an entire city or division.

A nuclear weapons program has telltale signs that cannot be hidden. It is clear from Bush's pre-war rhetoric that he knew Iraq did not have nuclear weapons or an active nuclear weapons program.

If Saddam Hussein had chemical or biological weapons he would not dare to use them UNLESS he was invaded because to use them would unite the world against him, it would be a fatal error.

I 'trusted' Saddam Hussein only insomuch as I trusted he wanted to remain in power. The 'unprecedented cooperation' with UNMOVIC in 2003 is evidence to support the notion that he would do anything to stay in power.

You must not have listened to his prewar speeches. He said exactly that, multiple times.

I disagree. He lied about the reasons we had for opposing the invasion.

Agreed. That is because you do not understand the issues.

Supposing I wrote that you have defended Bush by claiming that anything the president says must be true by definition and therefor the President cannot tell a lie. Would I be expressing an opinion, or lying about you?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Crimony, you really don;t read the papers do you?

CBS has comletely backed off their claim.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Iraqi resistance to the UN spections prior to 2000 is well-documented. Iraq was acting like a country with something to hide. Not so in 2003.

1. What did they have to hide in 2000?

Diddley squat.

Can you direct me to transcripts of those conversatios, preferreably translated by a neutral third party?

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Reports are that Burkett first approached the Kerry Campaign with the material and they declined to use it.

I hope you're not a Democrat either. Political parties are fundamentally destructive of Democracy.

[Swingman]

Have NO fear on that count ... ;>)

[Doug Miller]

Not all the way, they haven't. Although they now admit that the documents are forged, they still insist that their content is accurate.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Doug Miller]

OTOH, someone more skeptical and less credulous than yourself would question whether UNMOVIC was looking in the right places. Obviously the Iraqis would not resist inspections of facilities that they themselves knew to be "clean".

Again, someone more skeptical and less credulous would question whether UNMOVIC was looking in the right places. Iraq's a pretty big place.

It could also be viewed as an indictment of the diligence (or lack thereof) with which UNMOVIC searched for these weapons. Remember, first, that certain UN members, chiefly France, Germany, and Russia, had strong economic interests in keeping Saddam in power, and thus there is some reason to question just how strongly the UN inspectors really wanted to find what they were supposedly looking for. Bear in mind, also, that "not found [not yet, not in Iraq]" is emphatically not the same as "never existed".

[snip]

While this is probably true of chemical agents, with respect to biological agents, you're clearly uninformed. Biological warfare agents can spread *far* beyond the immediate area of attack, and infect a large population. Read a bit about the spread of the black plague through Europe in the Middle Ages, or the 1918 flu epidemic -- then imagine how much farther and faster those diseases can spread, given modern high-speed transportation methods.

I disagree that this is so clear, but that's a question of opinion...

.. this, however, is a question of fact, and your statement is absolute nonsense -- he *already* used chemical weapons, against both the Kurds and the Iranians -- and that didn't "unite the world against him".

Did UNMOVIC search the right places? You and I are seeing the same thing, and attaching two radically different interpretations to it. I see that as evidence that UNMOVIC didn't know where, or how, to look. You see Saddam allowing inspectors to search a particular location, and assume that means he's cooperating with the inspection regime. I see that, and assume that it means he's allowing them to search that particular location because he knows that the stuff they're searching for is not there, because he knows that it's _somewhere_else_.

Which of these interpretations is correct?

I don't know -- but _you_don't_know_either_, and it does not appear to me that you have even considered my interpretation, let alone realized that it covers the observed facts just as well as yours does.

Time will tell -- Saddam had twelve years to hide all his toys, and I guess that if another twelve years of searching elapse without anybody finding them, I'll be ready to agree that they were never there. But for now, I think it's best to keep in mind that _apparent_ cooperation is not necessarily _actual_ cooperation, and that are other explanations that also fit the facts.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Doug Miller]

1996 comes to mind immediately. Unfortunately the honest one didn't articulate (and presumably didn't have) any real explanation of *why* he wanted to be President, or why anyone should vote for him. And so we got stuck with another four years of a lying philanderer (or is that a philandering liar) in the White House.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

[Al Spohn]

Nah, if it's Dole you're talking about, his political history was riddled with creative campaign financing from inappropriate sources. On top of that, he was Big Tobacco's talking dummy. Nothing that in my book would rule him out as a viable candidate, mind you, but certainly enough for me to recognize his measure of honesty where the rubber meets the road. I'll take somebody willing to lie about their nocturnal cigar activity over someone who circumvents the rules in campaign financing and is in the pocket of reprehensible special interest groups any day.

- Al

[Dan White]

I think liberals and conservatives both benefit in the long run when the press is not slanted too much either way.

dwhite