quote:Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.
"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Incontestable. You folks know what that means?
It means if you want to hold true to your assertions that Bush lied about this stuff, then you must now declare Clinton a liar as well.
That's gonna hurt.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:It means if you want to hold true to your assertions that Bush lied about this stuff, then you must now declare Clinton a liar as well.
It doesn't hurt as much as seeing Republicans turn to the man they'd most like to flay to justify the war in Iraq. I mean, if you (and I believe you do) really believe the "you can't call Bush a liar without calling Clinton a liar" line ( ) then the reverse holds true: you can't call Clinton a liar without calling Bush a liar.
Oh, wait, you've called Clinton everything under the book, haven't you? I guess, since you're in love with "Guilt by Association" that you believe George W. Bush to be a druggie, alcoholic, draft-dodging adulterer.
But I forget, Bush qualifies for most of that without being associated with Clinton
quote:"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."
And you wanna know something, Rob? If a Democrat was in office right now, you'd be screaming for his head, wailing about soldiers being dragged through the streets in Somalia, and aspirin factories in Sudan, and you'd be screaming and ranting and raving because when it comes down to it, Republicans are evil greedy fucks who prosecute their political enemies for adultery and expect to get off easy when all they do is bomb and invade countries.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
the reverse holds true: you can't call Clinton a liar without calling Bush a liar.
I think you two are talking about two different kinds of calling someone a liar. You can't say that Bush lied about this one thing without saying that Clinton lied about that same thing. However, we can still say Clinton was a liar because he lied about many many many OTHER things. Which is, of course, irrelevant semantics.
when it comes down to it, Republicans are evil greedy fucks who prosecute their political enemies for adultery and expect to get off easy when all they do is bomb and invade countries.
Quickest. Thread. Death. Ever.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But accurate.
Republicans were all hot and heavy to impeach Clinton for lying about his sexual activity, but mention impeaching Bush for lying about evidence which resulted in an invasion, and suddenly it's all "Oh, but look, Bill is our friend."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Is there even any point to political dialogue anymore? Let's just set off the warheads and be done with it.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
As merely a former president (and therefore no longer Commander in Chief) M. Clinton probably lacked the resources available to M. Bush II to thorough fact-check these intelligence details.
If you want to excuse presidential lying then it's a question of degree, really. Clinton lied about getting his dick sucked by someone who was not his wife. This is a bad thing and by no means should it be construed that we were all, like, "Yeah, GO BILL! Fuck that intern who isn't your wife!!!" At the same time the only little soldiers dying as a result of Clinton's lie were the little swimmers the former president dribbled down the front of Monica's dress. To the best of my knowledge no ones sons are presently getting shot to death in a desert hellhole as a result of these lies of M. Clinton.
Which is to say that it doesn't hurt, Rob. What hurts is the hypocrisy with which you are willingness to dismiss the lies of one president which have directly resulted in war (WAR!) and the continuing shedding of American blood on foreign soil, whereas the lies of the other (regarding a personal affaire and on a smaller scale) had you brandishing torches and demanding impeachment. Irregardless of motive, the consequences of each are entirely out of proportion. Would saying 'Apples and Oranges' get us anywhere?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I stole this from another site but it sums it up
quote:I can hear the NeoCons cognitive dissonance from here. Everything a Clinton says must be a lie. Its supports the president, so it must be true. But everything a Clinton says must be a lie. *repeat till smoke shoots out ears*
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Politics!
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
Limbaugh was talking about this today. Instead of calling it support, he was spinning it, saying that Clinton was covering his own ass. One of his callers wanted to know where BC's administration got the intelligence. I wouldn't mind hearing that one myself.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Republicans were all hot and heavy to impeach Clinton for lying about his sexual activity, but mention impeaching Bush for lying about evidence which resulted in an invasion
Clinton was impeached for perjury, not just plain old lying. Even if Bush DID lie to start this war (of which you still have no evidence), I'm pretty sure that's not an actual crime, because he wasn't under oath at the time. I'd probably call for his head ANYWAY, mind you, but you couldn't impeach him for it.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Er, Clinton DID engage in military activities on the basis of questionable info.
The "chemical weapons factory" in the Sudan, for another (thank you for bringing that up, Jeffy. I love it when you prove my points.)
quote:The Sudanese government called loudly for an international inspection, which the Clinton administration -- once so confident -- declined to endorse. By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products.
I'm sure that the 3500 civilians who got blown up by our bombs in Kosovo would differ with your assessment that it was about 'nothing,' Balaam.
It's only a matter of scale and results. Clintons actions in Kosovo had some results (although our trops were supposed to be out of there in a year, remember?). His cruise missile launches didn't (besides pissing off Sudan and maybe giving some encouragement to Osama's boys, and possibly convincing Hussein to hide his stuff better).
On the other hand, Bush has destroyed two repressive regimes and improved conditions in both those countries. In Iraq's case, even better than prewar levels in many areas.
If Clinton is backing Bush, it's most likely because he acted (sort of) on the same intelligence, and he knows that such namecalling will inevitably rub off on him, and his "legacy" is in bad enough shape as it is.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So, let me get this straight. Clinton's authorization of military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was wrong because it was based on possibly faulty intelligence and because it tied up manpower? But Bush's authorization of military intervention in the former Iraq was right because, despite being based on possibly faulty intelligence and tying up military manpower in peacekeeping duties far more extensive than anything the U.S. has engaged in since the aftermath of WWII...well, because why, exactly?
If you've got a case for the rightness of Gulf War II (or for that matter if you've got a case against it), then make it and let it stand on its own merits. The sheer degree of the hypocrisy on display here makes me feel like my mind needs a shower. There have been claims made in the Flameboard over the past several days that I honestly cannot imagine anyone being able to say with a straight face, and yet here we are.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: So, let me get this straight. Clinton's authorization of military intervention in the former Yugoslavia was wrong because it was based on possibly faulty intelligence and because it tied up manpower? But Bush's authorization of military intervention in the former Iraq was right because, despite being based on possibly faulty intelligence and tying up military manpower in peacekeeping duties far more extensive than anything the U.S. has engaged in since the aftermath of WWII...well, because why, exactly?
If you've got a case for the rightness of Gulf War II (or for that matter if you've got a case against it), then make it and let it stand on its own merits. The sheer degree of the hypocrisy on display here makes me feel like my mind needs a shower. There have been claims made in the Flameboard over the past several days that I honestly cannot imagine anyone being able to say with a straight face, and yet here we are.
No. Clinton acted correctly in intervening in Kosovo, AND Bush acted correctly in removing Hussein from power. That their analyses both contained a bit of inaccurate data is inconsequential compared to the destruction that was averted because of these actions.
They hypocracy lies in the differentiation between the two actions, which is in reality based solely upon the political affiliations of the presidents involved.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
crisy/crasy/cracy? Stupid word, be more obvious.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What? Didn't you know? You don't live in a democracy anymore, you live in a hypocracy. 8)
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: No. Clinton acted correctly in intervening in Kosovo, AND Bush acted correctly in removing Hussein from power. That their analyses both contained a bit of inaccurate data is inconsequential compared to the destruction that was averted because of these actions.
They hypocracy lies in the differentiation between the two actions, which is in reality based solely upon the political affiliations of the presidents involved.
OK. So, if we say that Clinton was a very naughty boy, and condemn him to a life of being a househusband while his wife has her crack at the wheel, then fine. But. . . if he's a very naughty boy, then that means Bush likewise is also a very naughty boy. Clinton got away with it however, something which never fails to work you Republicans into a fury: but that doesn't mean anyone else should get away with it, surely?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I'm sure that the 3500 civilians who got blown up by our bombs in Kosovo would differ with your assessment that it was about 'nothing,' Balaam.
Erm. You may want to check your notes, FoT. Because at no point did I even bring up Kosovo, or for that matter say that it (presumably Kosovo) was about ' 'nothing' ' or whatever and stuff.
But since you did bring it up, if I remember correctly the primary reason we were in Kosovo was for humanitarian concerns. Namely ethnic cleansing and the raping and stuff. This was the stated purpose of the mission, the need for our intervention. As that article you cite pointed out, those reports may have been exaggerated. Probably a lot of the rapes that happened over there weren't systematically ordered and organized. Probably a bunch of them just kind of happened spontaneously. I mean a bunch of big gruff soldiers (lots of 'em with a troubled past) out there in the terrifying and harsh battlefield and all men, and no sex and you place them in a position of power with a group of beautiful young women, it just happens, you know. They just need a release and there weren't any orders or organization or anything. It just happened. And that really is the point: that it just happened. Because it did happen. Many, many ethnically Albanian women were raped by Serbian soldiers. Also thousands of bodies of their less (more?) fortunate victims have been recovered from mass graves in Yugoslavia. It may not have been the numbers that Cohen or Clinton were throwing around, but still THOUSANDS. That's a lot of dead people to you and me. That's real dead people. Found. Buried in the ground. That are dead. That were the reason we were there in the first place.
The primary reason we entered into Gulf War Ep.2 was because we said that Sadaam Hussein was not complying with U.N. Weapons inspectors and was, in fact (we claimed), producing weapons of mass destruction. This was the premise. We (the US) tried to go the straight route, through the U.N. But they were taking too long or stalling or ineffective or whatever, so we had to go in (w/ the coalition of the willing in tow) to stop those weapons programs which were so imminently dangerous. And since that was the primary reason we were there no back-pedaling on their non-existence should be tolerated. Maybe we don't find them in the numbers we anticipated, perhaps not in the immediacy of deployment, but something concrete that we can say, "Yes, we were vindicated in coming over here and our boys and girls getting shot at and kiled because the stuff that's in these bombs (or missiles or whatever) would have killed many thousands more American (or possibly Israeli or other Allied) lives..." Where are they? We need to see them. We need to know that the reason we were told it was so bloody important to risk our troops was valid. I hope we do find them. I hope we pry up the flagstone to some out-of-the-way palace and find an underground lab with a centrifuge full of enriched uranium and a cluster of warheads and maybe even some blackmarket Russian ICMBs or something. Because then it would mean something. I could feel like my country did something good and righteous and we were right to do what we did and flaunt our military might and bypass valuable global treaties to destroy this threat. But until we find those weapons which were the reason we went, we went to war for a lie. Obviously Sadaam was not a nice or a good man. It is true that there were huge humanitarian concerns (hell as someone already pointed out we even supplied/encouraged some of his atrocities), but really that's not why we went over there. That's not why we went around the UN and NATO. We went there to get them WMD and make sure they didn't make any more dead Americans.
Look, man I know I'm not going to ever convince you that the liberals might have a point or even that both sides need to be closely scrutinized because they're full of finks. I realize it's beyond that. And I also realize that you'll think we're attacking you because it's a cause you so fervently believe in. But honestly it's not like that. Not for me anyway. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not like that for me, at least. I want you to have a different opinion than me. I want you to be able to believe in something I don't. I just want you to see, to accept that if our country has gone to war and risked our fighting men and women, upset global politics and been manipulated into invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses, then that is wrong. Very very very wrong. This country is possessed of the most powerful military and arsenal that has ever existed ever. And with great power comes great responsibility. (This is all sounding very familiar for some reason). But if our leaders have indeed unnecessarily risked (and lost) the precious lives of our service men and women and possibly worse done so to further some alternate agenda to which we are not party, then our leaders have failed in their most important duties to protect and to honestly represent their citizens.
Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
Clinton: Lied about screwing an intern.
Bush: Lied to the world about WMD's so his cronies could snatch the Iraqi oil-supply.
BIG difference here. Is it possible to recall the President?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Even if Bush DID lie to start this war (of which you still have no evidence), I'm pretty sure that's not an actual crime, because he wasn't under oath at the time. I'd probably call for his head ANYWAY, mind you, but you couldn't impeach him for it.
Wrong.
quote:To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
quote:Originally posted by Styrofoaman: Clinton: Lied about screwing an intern.
Bush: Lied to the world about WMD's so his cronies could snatch the Iraqi oil-supply.
BIG difference here. Is it possible to recall the President?
Not for lieing, or we'd never be able to keep a President.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Just so no-one gets confused, Simon was the one who correctly spelled "hypocrisy".
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Interesting.
quote:Bush's lies vs. Clinton's lies
Conservative Republicans like to compare George W. Bush to Ronald Reagan, characterizing him as a masculine Everyman, traditionally conservative and regularly underestimated because of his low-key manner. Liberals like to compare him with his father, who seemed Reagan's tightly wound, Ivy League, career-climbing opposite -- and a one-term president to boot.
Now a different former president is the dominant comparison: Bill Clinton. And that bodes very poorly for our commander in chief.
In the past week, as the White House first reeled from plummeting polls and the Iraq intelligence flap, and then beamed at footage of Uday and Qusay's demise at the Mosul corral, references to Clinton have come both from those taking aim at the president and those buffering his image.
For opponents, Bush's notorious 16 words in his State of the Union address erroneously talking up the Iraqi nuclear threat make up a far more important prevarication than Clinton's 11 ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.") Moreover, the White House's fine parsing of the phrase matches Clinton's floundering over the definitions of "is" and "sexual relations." Consequently, critics argue, the political price that Bush pays for his lie should more or less match what Clinton paid. The stakes, after all, have been wildly disproportionate.
I was worried, because I do all my spelling via Google these days, and it responded "Hypocrisy is the right spelling, according to Sweden's number one death metal band!" and I believed it, and then later I started to wonder if maybe Sweden's number one death metal band was really all that concerned about proper spelling.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Salon's writer makes the erroneous equivocation of "erroneous" with "prevarication." Possibly he is prevaricating.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'd expect a Swedish death metal group to have good spelling ability. That, and not biting the heads of bats - "It is not very hygienic, and is cruel to the bat besides!" And they probably persuade their female groupies to enter a nunnery. 8)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In point of fact, the Scandinavian death metal scene is filled with really angry people.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) then the reverse holds true: you can't call Clinton a liar without calling Bush a liar. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)