Aircraftkiller on 3/7/2007 at 23:19
Perjury is wrong no matter who commits it. I supported ousting Clinton for it and I'll support whoever tries to come down on this guy for it. However, the "lies" part I'll have to disagree with.
(
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/97111011_tpo.html)
Quote:
UNSCOM
IRAQI NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
Saddam Hussein has never fully cooperated with UNSCOM and for six
years has ignored the U.N. Security Council requirements to disarm.
Iraq's extensive record of lying, obstruction and noncooperation
demand that the highest standards of proof be employed to measure
Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Only when pushed does Iraq
grudgingly comply. We believe that Iraq maintains a small force of
SCUD-type missiles, a stockpile of chemical and biological munitions
and the capability to quickly resurrect biological and chemical
weapons production.
Cooperation with UNSCOM
Iraq has taken an increasingly hard line with UNSCOM since the spring
when UNSCOM began inspecting "security facilities" suspected of
concealing documents and material.
UNSCOM inspectors have detected Iraqi officials removing documents and
material from buildings and burning documents to prevent them from
being seized by UNSCOM. Iraq officials also interfered with several
U.N. helicopter flights supporting inspections, at times endangering
the aircraft by harassing the pilot.
SD on 3/7/2007 at 23:39
Quote Posted by Aircraftkiller
Perjury is wrong no matter who commits it. I supported ousting Clinton for it
I must have missed the bit where Clinton committed perjury. Maybe you could jog my memory?
Zygoptera on 3/7/2007 at 23:57
I did not have sex with that woman? (Under oath, so while I have a fair bit of sympathy for him based on the partisan nature of the investigation, it certainly was perjury)
Quote Posted by ACK
However, the "lies" part I'll have to disagree with.
The Niger yellowcake story, which is the pertinent part of the justification, does seem to have been demonstrably wrong, and wasn't strongly or ultimately supported by the Brits who supplied the intel. It was known to be unreliable even prior to the investigation. Yet it still got used and was stated as definitive, it was a lie in the same way that telling you I won the lottery last week and am now a millionaire becomes a lie when I get round to checking the ticket and find I haven't won.
Pyrian on 3/7/2007 at 23:59
I really have no idea what that 1997 link is supposed to support. :weird:
Shug on 4/7/2007 at 00:01
but it's GLOBAL SECURITY DOT ORG
*Zaccheus* on 4/7/2007 at 00:10
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I really have no idea what that 1997 link is supposed to support. :weird:
I was about to ask the same question. Actually that is typical of the kind of lies which WERE told during the run-up to the Iraq war: Presenting 'evidence' from years ago as if it were relevant to the (then) current situation. ;)
SD on 4/7/2007 at 00:12
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
I did not have sex with that woman? (Under oath, so while I have a fair bit of sympathy for him based on the partisan nature of the investigation, it certainly was perjury)
Ignoring the fact that the investigation had no right to ask him the question, there's a whole grey area around whether saying "I didn't have sex" == "I didn't have oral sex". The sort of grey area that is the difference between someone committing perjury and someone being a bit of a weasel, but not a perjurer.
*Zaccheus* on 4/7/2007 at 00:14
I suspect many people would consider someone who had only ever had oral sex to still be a virgin.
SD on 4/7/2007 at 00:17
Under standard scoring rules, a blowjob only counts as a half.
Turtle on 4/7/2007 at 00:39
4.5/10 since he had to finish on her dress.
