Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


That's too bad. Is there a principled reason why you think this is OK, or are you just used to presidents who will not live up to your principles? .

I just wish the democrats could admit that it was not about sex, but it was about lying under oath, which is wrong. And. criminal. we are a nation of laws, why do they disrespect that concept?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Keeping the peace was a major part his platform. Wilkies main political tactic was to accuse FDR of warmongering. Which FDR consistently denied. Meanwhile he was working out ways of getting us into the war and already had Marshall preparing European invastion strategies.

OK. I'll believe he lied when I see the purported lies.

No he wouldn't. Clinton lied directly under oath and people argued that it was not perjury.

I don't think many people believed that, and they didn't carry the day.

Can you imagine trying to prove he intentionally lied by not sharing all the facts. No way. Beyond a reasonable doubt - no way.

You didn't click on the link I posted, did you?

Suppose you're representing a company in litigation. The CEO testifies that the company has certain records. Later it comes out that the COO told him the day before that testimony that the company had been looking for the records for years and had never found any. You don't think you have a little perjury problem? Please.

Like this is something new. Using arguments and facts that support you policy decisions. That is standard operating procedure in every white house.

You never answered my question -- is there a principled reason why it's OK to make these misrepresentations, or are you just a cynic?

I personally am troubled by a White House that makes a public case for war that does not reflect the best information it has. Sorry to hear that you're not.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I don't think many people believed that, and they didn't carry the day.

.

You have to be kidding me? I have never met a Democrat who was willing to admit that what Clinton was wrong, without qualification. Its about sex, Starr was on a witchhunt, what is is.

Please!

Clinton lied under oath and the Dems said no consequences. Bush has never even lied, he just relied on intelligence, which may or may not have been flawed, as the WMDs may still turn up.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's too bad. Is there a principled reason why you think this is OK, or are you just used to presidents who will not live up to your principles?

I believe in the idea of a Republic not a true democracy. Foreign policy should not be run on democratic principles. Like they say you cant have 435 secretarys of state. I think our military and the department of state are full of educated and capable people. Our general and admirals are some of the most educated and talented people in the world. When it comes to foreign policy I think the bueracracy is much more in charge than the President. I think most of our Presidents defer to these people because they realize they know what they are doing.

Of course there are exception. Johnson in Vietnam with regard to amount of troops, Kennedy with the bay of pig and the need for aircover and Rumsfield when he told the army that we could do what we wanted with a much smaller army.

The President job is just to sell their decisions to the public. Sometimes they have to distort the truth for strategic reasons. But the public can't know what is really going on because if the public knows the enemy knows.

I think the proof of the pudding was when Clinton ran for President he critisized every foreigh policy operaion Bush was in . He critisized Hait, Somali, Chinas MFN status, NAFTA etc. And then he followed the exact same policy when he got in.

To get elected the candidate must critisize everything the incumbant does. NO matter what. That is just politics. Like Kennedy accusing Eisenhauer of allowing a missile gap when he knew there wasn't one. Eisenhauer couldn't fight back to do so would hurt National Security. In these situations the incumbants just have to suck it up.

In foreign policy if the President isnt' deceiving me or lying to me he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You have to be kidding me? I have never met a Democrat who was willing to admit that what Clinton was wrong, without qualification. Its about sex, Starr was on a witchhunt, what is is.

Please!

Clinton lied under oath and the Dems said no consequences.

What Clinton did was wrong. Period.

It was about sex, Starr was out of control -- I saw this notwithstanding my deep personal admiration for the man, with which you are familiar -- and the GOP tried to use his mistake for political reasons.

It wasn't grounds for impeachment, but what he did was wrong. Period.

Clinton suffered consequences, and I find it odd that conservatives now seem to feel that there has to be a legal sanction because traditional social sanctions apparently count for nothing.

Bush has never even lied, he just relied on intelligence, which may or may not have been flawed, as the WMDs may still turn up.

Tommy Franks told Bush that they had been looking for WMD for years without finding any. Bush told reporters two days later, categorically, that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it's not a lie only in the sense that Bush had some sort of religious-like conviction that Hussein was a bad man and that an invasion would turn up the evidence, but the fact remains that he misrepresented what he knew, and made statements about WMD for which he did not have a basis, and that he did this in order to try to convince this country to go to war. When Bush said that, he wasn't "relying" on intelligence -- he was bending and twisting what he was told, and using it to try to convince people to go along with what he already decided to do.

It's pathetic the way you guys want to pretend that Bush was somehow misled by the CIA. He's the leader, right? We all know that the CIA was his bitch, not the other way around.

[Spanky]

So the conclusion is:

Clinto committed perjury

FDR lied

Bush didn't lie because he really believed that there were WMDs but he did misrepresent the facts that were presented to him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe in the idea of a Republic not a true democracy. Foreign policy should not be run on democratic principles. Like they say you cant have 435 secretarys of state. I think our military and the department of state are full of educated and capable people. Our general and admirals are some of the most educated and talented people in the world. When it comes to foreign policy I think the bueracracy is much more in charge than the President. I think most of our Presidents defer to these people because they realize they know what they are doing.

Of course there are exception. Johnson in Vietnam with regard to amount of troops, Kennedy with the bay of pig and the need for aircover and Rumsfield when he told the army that we could do what we wanted with a much smaller army.

The President job is just to sell their decisions to the public. Sometimes they have to distort the truth for strategic reasons. But the public can't know what is really going on because if the public knows the enemy knows.

I think the proof of the pudding was when Clinton ran for President he critisized every foreigh policy operaion Bush was in . He critisized Hait, Somali, Chinas MFN status, NAFTA etc. And then he followed the exact same policy when he got in.

To get elected the candidate must critisize everything the incumbant does. NO matter what. That is just politics. Like Kennedy accusing Eisenhauer of allowing a missile gap when he knew there wasn't one. Eisenhauer couldn't fight back to do so would hurt National Security. In these situations the incumbants just have to suck it up.

In foreign policy if the President isnt' deceiving me or lying to me he is giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

There is a difference between selling and deceiving. In business, that's the difference between good marketing and fraud. We ought to be able to expect the same from our leaders, because their actions have legitimacy only because they derive their authority from our consent. We are a democracy, even if we have a republican form of government.

I fundamentally disagree that a President's job is to sell decisions which have already been made to the public. A President's job is to lead, and you can't lead for very long if you aren't straight with people. If your brand of leadership is based on misleading people, those chickens come home to roost.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the conclusion is:

Clinto committed perjury

FDR lied

Bush didn't lie because he really believed that there were WMDs but he did misrepresent the facts that were presented to him.

On Clinton, yes.

On FDR, I still want to see the alleged lies.

On Bush, it is too soon to say what he knew because we have a very incomplete record.

[Penske_Account]

Meanwhile, a group of military families who support U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq announced they will caravan from Sacramento to Crawford starting Monday in what they are calling the "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour.

Move America Forward, a conservative, nonprofit Bay Area group, is organizing the caravan.

The goal of the caravan is "to present an alternative voice to that of Cindy Sheehan, who has become the heroine of the 'Blame America First' crowd," according to an announcement from the group. "The truth is that the men and women in the military and their families are the strongest supporters of the war on terrorism, and they do not agree with the message or antics of Cindy Sheehan. Their voices must now be heard."

The caravan will be headed by Deborah Johns, a Roseville resident and founder of Northern California Marine Moms. It will stop in Vacaville briefly before heading to San Francisco for a press conference and then heading to Texas.

"Cindy Sheehan doesn't speak for me, nor does she speak for any of the military families that I have been involved with," Johns said in a press release Tuesday. "I am deeply sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss; however (her) actions are only causing pain to those of us who have loved ones serving in the war against terrorism. We understand the need to fight the terrorists overseas rather than face attack here at home."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
So the conclusion is:

Clinto committed perjury

FDR lied

Bush didn't lie because he really believed that there were WMDs but he did misrepresent the facts that were presented to him.

2, 2 and 2, but the last is qualified as the WMDs may be in Syria.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2, 2 and 2, but the last is qualified as the WMDs may be in Syria.

So why did Bush really believe that there were WMD in Iraq when the intelligence people were telling him something much less certain? If he didn't lie, doesn't it bother you that we have a President who got it so wrong on such an important question?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What Clinton did was wrong. Period.

It was about sex, Starr was out of control -- I saw this notwithstanding my deep personal admiration for the man, with which you are familiar -- and the GOP tried to use his mistake for political reasons.

I don't understand this. Why is sex relevant? Is there a special sex related category of perjury? If not, why qualify it? Its perjury and its wrong, regardless of the subject of the perjury, right?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


It wasn't grounds for impeachment, but what he did was wrong. Period.

so what you are saying is that perjury does not at least raise the issue of whether or not the Chief Executive officer of the country, the man ultimately in charge of administering the laws of the nation is fit to serve in that capacity? I don't believe he should have been removed from office (although maybe censured), but I think he should have been impeached to examine what he did. Publicly.

If what you saying holds for all, then any lawyer who knwolingly files a false affidavit or presents other false testimony to a judge should have no consequence (other than social sanction). Right?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Clinton suffered consequences, and I find it odd that conservatives now seem to feel that there has to be a legal sanction because traditional social sanctions apparently count for nothing.

so social sanction replaces punitive measures. Does that work across the board, maybe we have pedophiles wear a large a P on their chests instead of jail time?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tommy Franks told Bush that they had been looking for WMD for years without finding any. Bush told reporters two days later, categorically, that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe it's not a lie only in the sense that Bush had some sort of religious-like conviction that Hussein was a bad man and that an invasion would turn up the evidence,

Maybe he was relying on his predecessor, who said Saddam either had WMDs or was trying to get them and thus would be a danger unless removed. Clinton's word should be sufficient.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On Bush, it is too soon to say what he knew because we have a very incomplete record.

Yes, once we invade Syria we will know the truth.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So why did Bush really believe that there were WMD in Iraq when the intelligence people were telling him something much less certain? If he didn't lie, doesn't it bother you that we have a President who got it so wrong on such an important question?

Maybe he was relying on Clinton, when Bill said:


Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government

Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour.
[/IMG]

Apparently this tour has rolled Cindy right out of Crawford as FoxNews is reporting she is picking up and going home. Interesting that Sheehan had vowed to remain until W met with her or until his month-long vacation was over. Guess he smoked her out.