Scots Taffer on 4/7/2007 at 00:54
Oval Office, more like Ovary Office
wait, that doesn't work
damn
too jetlagged for jokes :(
Aircraftkiller on 4/7/2007 at 01:06
It's supposed to show that UNSCOM, the inspection agency in Iraq up until the point where we invaded, could not conclusively prove that there were WMD because of how Saddam's agents would either destroy or confiscate evidence that could confirm what he really had in his possession. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see how you can call it a lie that Iraq had WMD when it was probable cause considering its prior usage of chemical weapons.
Quote:
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.
That's pretty fucking stupid imho. I don't like how we went into this war at all, I figured the 12 years of violations would be a better justification than the possibility of WMDs.
Pyrian on 4/7/2007 at 01:26
Quote Posted by Aircraftkiller
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see how you can call it a lie that Iraq had WMD when it was probable cause considering its prior usage of chemical weapons.
Sure. The lying was saying we
did have all this evidence which was either trumped up or outright non-existent. If we'd just said "we're not entirely sure he doesn't", then that wouldn't have been a lie.
But that's not the worst lie. The worst lie is that WMD's, etc., had anything to do with the invasion at all. It is painfully obvious from multiple sources that every single justification given was just trumped up to support a decision which had been long since made.
Quote Posted by Aircraftkiller
...I figured the 12 years of violations would be a better justification than the possibility of WMDs.
If violating a U.N. charter were grounds for invasion, I doubt there are many countries which that standard wouldn't apply to. We couldn't get the U.N. to agree to sanction Saddam's removal from power (and we certainly tried), so I don't think relying on the U.N. as justification is valid.
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)
Not so certain at all, given that that testimony was stricken from the trial.
Zygoptera on 4/7/2007 at 03:33
Quote Posted by SD
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".
Supposedly he actually said that he didn't have 'sexual relations' with her, which most would say would include oral sex and 'extra special' cigar rolling. I'm glad it didn't amount to much in the end, as it was obviously a politically motivated combo witch-hunt/ fishing expedition on Starr/ Tripp's part but saying it wasn't a lie is a bit disingenuous.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Not so certain at all, given that that testimony was stricken from the trial.
That is interesting, didn't know it was struck. I'm a bit surprised, I thought that Starr had managed to get his enquiry's terms of reference set so loose that by the end he could investigate pretty much anything.
Pyrian on 4/7/2007 at 06:29
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
Supposedly he actually said that he didn't have 'sexual relations' with her, which most would say would include oral sex and 'extra special' cigar rolling.
The short quote is: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," but when pressed for details (such as oral), he referred back to that statement; it's really hard to argue that the full testimony wasn't an outright lie.
Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that whether Bill Clinton actually committed perjury beyond a reasonable doubt (which is a bit more than just "didn't tell the truth under oath") is something of an open question.
(
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/187) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/187
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
That is interesting, didn't know it was struck.
(
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/29/clinton.main/) Yup.
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
I'm a bit surprised, I thought that Starr had managed to get his enquiry's terms of reference set so loose that by the end he could investigate pretty much anything.
The most famous quote is actually from the Paula Jones civil trial.
*Zaccheus* on 4/7/2007 at 09:45
Quote Posted by Aircraftkiller
I figured the 12 years of violations would be a better justification than the possibility of WMDs.
There were many many years of co-operation. The phrase "12 years of violations" is another one of those truth twisting sound-bites.
Paz on 4/7/2007 at 12:05
They let this guy off because he sounds like a cartoon character - you wouldn't let Droopy go to prison, would you?
*Zaccheus* on 4/7/2007 at 21:25
Yes, truth twisting sound bytes: Making it sound as if the whole 12 years had been like the post-1998 situation.
SD on 4/7/2007 at 21:37
"I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair."
-- George W. Bush, writing in his autobiography, A Charge to Keep.
