The Dixie Chicks were right.

[Perinquus]

Nor was this fact one of the critical points in the case for going to war with Iraq, since Colin Powell didn't even include it in his briefing to the U.N. Security Council.

That's because he knew how weak it was. He had to throw out a lot of the evidence brought to him because it was weak and exaggerated.

I will readily concede that Bush apparently overestimated or exaggerated the value of that piece of evidence in making the SOTU address, and later left it out of the UN briefing for that very reason. But that is not the same thing as an outright, deliberate lie. I believe Bush was guilty of exaggeration, and Bush's political opponents are guilty of exggerating the importance of this slip up in their eagerness to find something with which to damage him politically.

[Darth Wong]

I will readily concede that Bush apparently overestimated or exaggerated the value of that piece of evidence in making the SOTU address, and later left it out of the UN briefing for that very reason. But that is not the same thing as an outright, deliberate lie. I believe Bush was guilty of exaggeration, and Bush's political opponents are guilty of exggerating the importance of this slip up in their eagerness to find something with which to damage him politically.

Ah, so the left is exaggerating the "importance" of dishonest justifications for aggressive warfare that costs tens of billions of dollars and causes thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, eh? I await your admission that the right was grossly exaggerating the importance of Clinton's blowjob lie.

PS. The distinction between quoting information wildly out of context and simply lying is a very fine line.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

PS. The distinction between quoting information wildly out of context and simply lying is a very fine line.

I don't even see the difference. What's important is whether a statement is deliberately misleading, not whether it's technically a lie or not.

[Perinquus]

Ah, so the left is exaggerating the "importance" of dishonest justifications for aggressive warfare that costs tens of billions of dollars and causes thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, eh? I await your admission that the right was grossly exaggerating the importance of Clinton's blowjob lie.

PS. The distinction between quoting information wildly out of context and simply lying is a very fine line.

Once again, that one piece of intel was a part of a great deal of other evidence that was used to justify the war. There were many other reasons which were judged sufficient to justify the war.

And as I have said many, many times before: it was not the fact that Clinton lied about a blowjob; it was the fact that he lied about it under oath. That's perjury, and it's a felony. It doesn't matter what you lie about under oath, it's still perjury, and there is no 1st or 2nd or 3rd degree perjury - it's just perjury. A convicted felon can't even vote in this country, and we had a felon serving in the nation's highest elected office. This sort of thing tends to make a mockery of our institutions.

[Darth Wong]

Once again, that one piece of intel was a part of a great deal of other evidence that was used to justify the war. There were many other reasons which were judged sufficient to justify the war.

Judged sufficient by Washington. However, the general public was sold the lie that America was under threat.

And as I have said many, many times before: it was not the fact that Clinton lied about a blowjob; it was the fact that he lied about it under oath. That's perjury, and it's a felony. It doesn't matter what you lie about under oath, it's still perjury, and there is no 1st or 2nd or 3rd degree perjury - it's just perjury. A convicted felon can't even vote in this country, and we had a felon serving in the nation's highest elected office. This sort of thing tends to make a mockery of our institutions.

In short, you feel it's more important to lie about a blowjob than a matter of national security because he did it under oath, even though this lie had no direct effect whatsoever on national policy (or indeed, anyone at all apart from the direct participants). Or, to put it another way, Clinton's little lie was technically illegal, while Bush's huge lie was not, and nothing's more important than the letter of the law.

[BoredShirtless]

Ah, so the left is exaggerating the "importance" of dishonest justifications for aggressive warfare that costs tens of billions of dollars and causes thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, eh? I await your admission that the right was grossly exaggerating the importance of Clinton's blowjob lie.

PS. The distinction between quoting information wildly out of context and simply lying is a very fine line.

Once again, that one piece of intel was a part of a great deal of other evidence that was used to justify the war. There were many other reasons which were judged sufficient to justify the war.

And as I have said many, many times before: it was not the fact that Clinton lied about a blowjob; it was the fact that he lied about it under oath. That's perjury, and it's a felony. It doesn't matter what you lie about under oath, it's still perjury, and there is no 1st or 2nd or 3rd degree perjury - it's just perjury. A convicted felon can't even vote in this country, and we had a felon serving in the nation's highest elected office. This sort of thing tends to make a mockery of our institutions.

The irony is thick today. What about the mockery your government put the UN through, breaking the rules constituting the UN charter. Does that mean anything to you?

[Sobbastchianno]

Durran Korr stated "Neither do I, but Iraq is a necessary step in the war against terrorism. And it seems to be working, too, we've managed to put the fear of God into both Syria and Saudi Arabia and they're cleaning up their bullshit now."

This being the case, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists from 9/11 were actually from? Why are we not forcing sanctions on Saudi Arabia? We entered Afghanistan to get to Al Queda headquarters. We have "intelligence" (I hesitate to use that word with our track record the past two years) that states the Saudis knew of these terrorists and their connection to Al Queda, so why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

Seems to me after we thought we were through in Afghanistan, Bush needed a reason to go to Iraq and finish what his daddy didn't. Well, the reason he gave us, and the rest of the world, was WOMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). So, I now ask, where are they? People are starting to get upset because we are not finding them, and American lives have been lost.

[Perinquus]

In short, you feel it's more important to lie about a blowjob than a matter of national security because he did it under oath, even though this lie had no direct effect whatsoever on national policy (or indeed, anyone at all apart from the direct participants). Or, to put it another way, Clinton's little lie was technically illegal, while Bush's huge lie was not, and nothing's more important than the letter of the law.

In short, I feel that it is important that the holder of the highest elected office in the United States not be seen to commit a felony and get away with it. It damages the whole concept of the rule of law. (And it's also not as though that's my only complaint against Clinton; there's also travelgate, pardongate, obstruction of justice in the investigation of Vince Foster's death, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, gutting the military while simultaneously increasing the number of employments, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater... the list goes on and on.) And it has yet to be proven to my satisfaction that Bush lied. At most he seems to have overestimated the reliability of one particular piece in a large mosaic of intelligence. And even without that particular piece of intel most Americans, myself included, believe that the war on Iraq was justified.

[Sobbastchianno]

In short, you feel it's more important to lie about a blowjob than a matter of national security because he did it under oath, even though this lie had no direct effect whatsoever on national policy (or indeed, anyone at all apart from the direct participants). Or, to put it another way, Clinton's little lie was technically illegal, while Bush's huge lie was not, and nothing's more important than the letter of the law.

In short, I feel that it is important that the holder of the highest elected office in the United States not be seen to commit a felony and get away with it. It damages the whole concept of the rule of law. (And it's also not as though that's my only complaint against Clinton; there's also travelgate, pardongate, obstruction of justice in the investigation of Vince Foster's death, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, gutting the military while simultaneously increasing the number of employments, the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater... the list goes on and on.) And it has yet to be proven to my satisfaction that Bush lied. At most he seems to have overestimated the reliability of one particular piece in a large mosaic of intelligence. And even without that particular piece of intel most Americans, myself included, believe that the war on Iraq was justified.

The Clinton investigation couldn't pin a damn thing on him, that is why they went for his personal/sexual dalliances, which we all knew about before we elected him, so our government spent 55 million dollars to tell us something we already knew, because they couldn't pin anything else on him. He did purger himself, but on a question that was none of anyone's business where an investigation of criminal wrongdoing in concerned. Hell, every president, with possible exception of Reagan (only due to age) had fooled around on his wife while in office. Tell us something we didn't know.

As for "over-estimating" the importinace of a particular piece of intelligence, that over-estimation has cost money, and cost lives. Would this not make him guilty of murder? Granted, he wasn't "under oath," however, in serving as president, doesn't he have the obligation to tell the truth about why our nation is attacking another nation, whether or not he is under oath? Murder is certainly a larger crime than getting a blowjob or purgery.

[Perinquus]

The Clinton investigation couldn't pin a damn thing on him, that is why they went for his personal/sexual dalliances, which we all knew about before we elected him, so our government spent 55 million dollars to tell us something we already knew, because they couldn't pin anything else on him. He did purger himself, but on a question that was none of anyone's business where an investigation of criminal wrongdoing in concerned. Hell, every president, with possible exception of Reagan (only due to age) had fooled around on his wife while in office. Tell us something we didn't know.

Once again, it doesn't matter what you are lying about, when you do it under oath, it's still perjury and it's still a felony. This is just one more piece of information in a long list of other info that indicates Clinton is a man of little or no integrity. He's a dishonest character, even for a politician.

As for "over-estimating" the importinace of a particular piece of intelligence, that over-estimation has cost money, and cost lives. Would this not make him guilty of murder? Granted, he wasn't "under oath," however, in serving as president, doesn't he have the obligation to tell the truth about why our nation is attacking another nation, whether or not he is under oath? Murder is certainly a larger crime than getting a blowjob or purgery.

And once again, this was just one relatively minor piece in a large body of intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq - which the majority of Americans still believe was a just war. People like you make it sound like our entire case rested on this one document and Bush's statement in the SOTU address. It didn't, so get over it.

[Sobbastchianno]

The Clinton investigation couldn't pin a damn thing on him, that is why they went for his personal/sexual dalliances, which we all knew about before we elected him, so our government spent 55 million dollars to tell us something we already knew, because they couldn't pin anything else on him. He did purger himself, but on a question that was none of anyone's business where an investigation of criminal wrongdoing in concerned. Hell, every president, with possible exception of Reagan (only due to age) had fooled around on his wife while in office. Tell us something we didn't know.

Once again, it doesn't matter what you are lying about, when you do it under oath, it's still perjury and it's still a felony. This is just one more piece of information in a long list of other info that indicates Clinton is a man of little or no integrity. He's a dishonest character, even for a politician.

As for "over-estimating" the importinace of a particular piece of intelligence, that over-estimation has cost money, and cost lives. Would this not make him guilty of murder? Granted, he wasn't "under oath," however, in serving as president, doesn't he have the obligation to tell the truth about why our nation is attacking another nation, whether or not he is under oath? Murder is certainly a larger crime than getting a blowjob or purgery.

And once again, this was just one relatively minor piece in a large body of intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq - which the majority of Americans still believe was a just war. People like you make it sound like our entire case rested on this one document and Bush's statement in the SOTU address. It didn't, so get over it.

On the Clinton affair, personally, in his position, I would have plead the fifth and told them it was none of their damn buisness. 'nuff said.

No, by the way, I don't believe there was a large body of evidence sending us to Iraq. The whole Plutonium sale "evidence" blew up in our face, and when the weapons inspectors couldn't find any weapons, we went in anyway, overthrowing a soverign government, and we still have found any weapons of mass destruction ourselves. Don't EVEN try to sell me on the "freeing the Iraqi people," crap, because if that had been a major concern, it would have been done with the first Bush.

We had NO BUSINESS being in Iraq without having given the inspectors more time and without confirming and double confirming intelligence reports. There is a rule in carpentry, measure twice, cut once. We failed to do that and now we have overthrown a sovereign government (albeit, not one I particularly liked) and we are now responsible for rebuilding the country. All this, and we weren't even attacked by Iraqi weapons. Imagine that.

If the people were THAT discontent, they could have overthrown the government. It was done in Iran in 1979, it was done here in the late 18th century. It is not entire unheard of.

[Perinquus]

No, by the way, I don't believe there was a large body of evidence sending us to Iraq. The whole Plutonium sale "evidence" blew up in our face, and when the weapons inspectors couldn't find any weapons, we went in anyway, overthrowing a soverign government, and we still have found any weapons of mass destruction ourselves. Don't EVEN try to sell me on the "freeing the Iraqi people," crap, because if that had been a major concern, it would have been done with the first Bush.

The weapons inspectors would never have found anything, no matter what was there, because the Iraqis weren't cooperating. All the inspectors were ever supposed to do was confirm that the Iraqis were disposing of their weapons in accordance with the UN resolutions that ended the Gulf War. Well the Iraqis weren't.

We had NO BUSINESS being in Iraq without having given the inspectors more time and without confirming and double confirming intelligence reports. There is a rule in carpentry, measure twice, cut once. We failed to do that and now we have overthrown a sovereign government (albeit, not one I particularly liked) and we are now responsible for rebuilding the country. All this, and we weren't even attacked by Iraqi weapons. Imagine that.

We had plenty of business in Iraq, the whole point of allowing the war to end when it did back in '91 was that Saddam agreed to abide by certain terms in exchange for ending the war. He broke those terms. And the best available intel indicated he would go right on breaking them, and that he had not accounted for all his WMDs as he was required to do. Our attacking Iraq was the result of Saddam's failure to comply. There is only one way to make sure people understand you mean what you say. Your foreign policy cannot be based on "you better abide by your obligations or else... or else we'll be really mad!" America has acquired the reputation of a paper tiger over the last few decades. We have been seen as a nation that ran out of Vietnam when the going got tough; that ran out of West Beirut when we had Marines killed; that ran out of Somalia when we had some young soldiers killed; that let Saddam Hussein survive the Gulf War; and this is exactly why people like Osama Bin Laden feel they can attack us with success, and why Saddam Hussein felt safe in violating his obligations in the first place - he was confident we wouldn't do anything about it, except maybe keep up the sanctions (which he was surviving) and maybe the weak Clintonian gesture of lobbing a few cruise missiles.

When, in the course of making your foreign policy, you tell another nation: "you will do this or else", you had better be willing to back that up with more than just talk. We went to war with Iraq in '91. The war ended with certain obligations being imposed on Saddam Hussein. He violated those obligations and had to be made to pay for that violation. That, in short, is the justification for the war. Most of the American public takes exactly that view of the situation.

If the people were THAT discontent, they could have overthrown the government. It was done in Iran in 1979, it was done here in the late 18th century. It is not entire unheard of.

Sure. They would have overthrown the government just like that. Simple really. For every revolt like that that has succeeded, I can find you one in history that was crushed. The fact that you use our Revolution as an example just reinforces my point - it would have been crushed without outside help.

[Edi]

[quote="Perinquus]And as I have said many, many times before: it was not the fact that Clinton lied about a blowjob; it was the fact that he lied about it under oath. That's perjury, and it's a felony.[/quote]
In response to this, if you happened to read the 16 Words; 16 Questions thread, you'd have seen...

Perjury was based on an improper spin on the events - Clinton answered the question truthfully per the court's definitions. The court explicitly defined sex as male-female vaginal intercourse, which Clinton and Lewinsky had not done; therefore Clinton was correct in answering that he had not had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

And that little tidbit should put that matter to rest pretty permanently.

It doesn't matter what you lie about under oath, it's still perjury, and there is no 1st or 2nd or 3rd degree perjury - it's just perjury. A convicted felon can't even vote in this country, and we had a felon serving in the nation's highest elected office. This sort of thing tends to make a mockery of our institutions.

Sure, he lied about the blowjob where anybody using common sense is concerned, but since the court was not using a common sense definition of sex, tough luck. There was no perjury, and therefore no felon in the office of POTUS. And this being the case, if Bush went to war with bogus premises and intentionally misled the public about the reasons for war, he looks decidedly worse than Clinton ever did.

Edi

[BoredShirtless]

No, by the way, I don't believe there was a large body of evidence sending us to Iraq. The whole Plutonium sale "evidence" blew up in our face, and when the weapons inspectors couldn't find any weapons, we went in anyway, overthrowing a soverign government, and we still have found any weapons of mass destruction ourselves. Don't EVEN try to sell me on the "freeing the Iraqi people," crap, because if that had been a major concern, it would have been done with the first Bush.

The weapons inspectors would never have found anything, no matter what was there, because the Iraqis weren't cooperating.

Not according to the UN. Are you calling Hans Blix a liar?

All the inspectors were ever supposed to do was confirm that the Iraqis were disposing of their weapons in accordance with the UN resolutions that ended the Gulf War. Well the Iraqis weren't.

Proof?

We had NO BUSINESS being in Iraq without having given the inspectors more time and without confirming and double confirming intelligence reports. There is a rule in carpentry, measure twice, cut once. We failed to do that and now we have overthrown a sovereign government (albeit, not one I particularly liked) and we are now responsible for rebuilding the country. All this, and we weren't even attacked by Iraqi weapons. Imagine that.

We had plenty of business in Iraq, the whole point of allowing the war to end when it did back in '91 was that Saddam agreed to abide by certain terms in exchange for ending the war. He broke those terms.

What terms did he break?

And the best available intel

I hardly think a research paper written by a grad student on "Iraq in 1991" qualifies as "best available intel".

indicated he would go right on breaking them, and that he had not accounted for all his WMDs as he was required to do.

What WMDs didn't Iraq account for?

Our attacking Iraq was the result of Saddam's failure to comply.

It's funny. You attack Iraq for violating end of war terms, but in doing so you violate international law. Isn't that funny?

There is only one way to make sure people understand you mean what you say. Your foreign policy cannot be based on "you better abide by your obligations or else... or else we'll be really mad!" America has acquired the reputation of a paper tiger over the last few decades. We have been seen as a nation that ran out of Vietnam when the going got tough; that ran out of West Beirut when we had Marines killed; that ran out of Somalia when we had some young soldiers killed; that let Saddam Hussein survive the Gulf War; and this is exactly why people like Osama Bin Laden feel they can attack us with success, and why Saddam Hussein felt safe in violating his obligations in the first place - he was confident we wouldn't do anything about it, except maybe keep up the sanctions (which he was surviving) and maybe the weak Clintonian gesture of lobbing a few cruise missiles.

When, in the course of making your foreign policy, you tell another nation: "you will do this or else", you had better be willing to back that up with more than just talk. We went to war with Iraq in '91. The war ended with certain obligations being imposed on Saddam Hussein. He violated those obligations and had to be made to pay for that violation. That, in short, is the justification for the war. Most of the American public takes exactly that view of the situation.

What about the rest of the world? This is an international issue isn't it?

[Sea Skimmer]

We had plenty of business in Iraq, the whole point of allowing the war to end when it did back in '91 was that Saddam agreed to abide by certain terms in exchange for ending the war. He broke those terms.

What terms did he break?

The "ceasefire" part, thousands of times. In case you didn't notice before the invasion of Iraq there had been a constant air war over Iraq since December 1998 with lesser engagement stretching back two years before that. There where also a scattering of minor incidents even earlier.

That cease fire was signed by an American military officer and the US was free to end it at any time, as it was it died by the actions of Iraq and American counter strikes years ago.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's funny. You attack Iraq for violating end of war terms, but in doing so you violate international law. Isn't that funny?

Except THE WAR NEVER ENDED. A ceasefire, which was all that was ever signed, does not end a war, that takes a political agreement. A cease fire is a military agreement signed by military personal to simply cease fighting. The US military signed it and it was then broken, that leaves war.

[Vympel]

All the inspectors were ever supposed to do was confirm that the Iraqis were disposing of their weapons in accordance with the UN resolutions that ended the Gulf War. Well the Iraqis weren't.

Problem: it is a fact that Iraq unilaterally disposed of much WMD before an inspections regime was in place. Inspectors could verify that WMD of the type in question had been destroyed, but could not fully account for the amounts. Hardly anyone ever mentions this. To categorically state that Iraq was or was not doing something is false.

Furthermore, the inspectors never said any such thing ("the Iraqis weren't"), as BoredShirtless points out.

We had plenty of business in Iraq, the whole point of allowing the war to end when it did back in '91 was that Saddam agreed to abide by certain terms in exchange for ending the war. He broke those terms.

Sorry, but the UN resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 1991 was purely related to liberating Kuwait, and offers absolutely no mandate for regime change in Iraq whatsoever. If you're going to argue letter of the law, get it right.

And the best available intel indicated he would go right on breaking them

And what wonderful intel that was. Forged documents about purchasing uranium, plagiarized university papers years out of date, claims about aluminum tubes while outright ignoring dissent from both the US Dept of Energy or the IAEA to the effect that they were not suitable for their stated purpose, and outright dishonesty by Colin Powell in his February 2003 presentation (the very same one where he brandished the 'dodgy dossier' as "solid intelligence"):

As pointed out by Gilbert Cranberg (Washington Post, 6/29/03), Powell embellished an intercepted conversation about weapons inspections between Iraqi officials to make it sound more incriminating, changing an order to "inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas" to a command to "clean out" those areas. He also added the phrase "make sure there is nothing there," a phrase that appears nowhere in the State Department's official translation. Further, Powell relied heavily on the disclosure of Iraq's pre-war unconventional weapons programs by defector Hussein Kamel, without noting that Kamel had also said that all those weapons had been destroyed

and that he had not accounted for all his WMDs as he was required to do.

See above.

Our attacking Iraq was the result of Saddam's failure to comply.

Iraq couldn't confirm it had destroyed some of the WMD that it did destroy immediately after the Gulf War. In addition, there has been various testimony out there for years by various people, for example, Scott Ritter (denounced as a Saddam apologist at the time and smugly saying I told you so now) and Hussein Kemal (in his 1995 debriefing when he defected) who affirmed that Iraq did not have the WMD claimed.

Furthermore, to this day not a single Iraqi scientist, soldier, officer, engineer, or anyone else has offered the US a single scrap of information regarding Iraq's supposed WMD stockpiles. The argument that they're afraid of Saddam doesn't fly anymore, I'm afraid- but surprise, they still say the same thing, despite a massive reward, assurances of immunity from prosecution, and offers of safe haven.

An aside on WMD.

Biological and chemical weapons are not WMD. They are ineffective weapons, both for military uses and for "terrorist" purposes. For both, they are hard to weaponize, hard to store, hard to deliver, and are highly dependant on the situation in which they are deployed- for example, the chemical attack on the Kurds back in 1988- that was a textbook example of where chemical weapons could be used for maximum effectiveness- the terrain, weather, target, and delivery systems were just right.

When you compare biological and chemical weapons to conventional explosives for terror factor, conventional explosives are far more impressive, and obviously far more popular with terrorists. Need I remind you of the extremely low casualty rate from the Tokyo Sarin attacks? If it had been a bomb, how many more people would it have killed?

[Vympel]

Except THE WAR NEVER ENDED. A ceasefire, which was all that was ever signed, does not end a war, that takes a political agreement. A cease fire is a military agreement signed by military personal to simply cease fighting. The US military signed it and it was then broken, that leaves war.

We've been over this many times. The ceasefire was contained in a UN resolution, and it says nothing about war continuing in the case of breach, let alone for the purposes of regime change in Iraq. Furthermore, the no-fly zones and the use of weapons in those zones were a violation of the UN Charter with no legal standing whatsoever.

I fully expect Axis Kast to come on and attempt to argue that there was some other cease fire that the US signed but which of course he cannot produce (which is great for him because he can make up whatever he wants about its terms), and I won't bother to argue the point with someone who can't present any evidence.

[Vympel]

To clarify:

Resolution 688 is the one the US relies on to attempt to argue that it's no-fly zones were authorized by the UN. It was complete bullshit. 688 calls on Iraq to protect the rights of various communities.

The fact is, not all Resolutions can include the use of force- 688 is one of them. Only resolutions specifically passed under the terms of Chapter VII can lead to the use of force. Resolution 688 was not passed under Chapter VII; quite the contrary, it reaffirms 'the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq.'"

We've trodden over this ground time and time again. Arguing for the attack on Iraq cannot rely on legal ground. There is no legal basis- especially not in Resolution 688- to attempt to argue that Iraqi defense of it's airspace against foreign aircraft violating the very sovereignty and territorial integrity that the resolution in question AFFIRMS is justification for war is utterly absurd.

[Iceberg]

Ah, so the left is exaggerating the "importance" of dishonest justifications for aggressive warfare that costs tens of billions of dollars and causes thousands of American and Iraqi casualties, eh? I await your admission that the right was grossly exaggerating the importance of Clinton's blowjob lie.

PS. The distinction between quoting information wildly out of context and simply lying is a very fine line.

Once again, that one piece of intel was a part of a great deal of other evidence that was used to justify the war. There were many other reasons which were judged sufficient to justify the war.

And as I have said many, many times before: it was not the fact that Clinton lied about a blowjob; it was the fact that he lied about it under oath. That's perjury, and it's a felony. It doesn't matter what you lie about under oath, it's still perjury, and there is no 1st or 2nd or 3rd degree perjury - it's just perjury. A convicted felon can't even vote in this country, and we had a felon serving in the nation's highest elected office. This sort of thing tends to make a mockery of our institutions.

The sole evidence of perjury on the part of Mr. Clinton was taken under a condition of entrapment. Explicitly defining "sex" in one way, gaining a truthful answer under that definition and then using a definition wherein that truthful answer becomes false in order to procure a conviction is, in fact, entrapment - which is why the impeachment trial never occurred. Evidence taken by entrapment is inadmissible, which you - being a police officer - ought to know. So sorry, try again. IIRC, entrapment is also a felony, as well.

The mockery of our institutions was in the Republican Party being so eager to "get" Mr. Clinton that they were willing to commit a felony in order to remove him from office.

[Perinquus]

[quote="Perinquus]And as I have said many, many times before: it was not the fact that Clinton lied about a blowjob; it was the fact that he lied about it under oath. That's perjury, and it's a felony.

In response to this, if you happened to read the 16 Words; 16 Questions thread, you'd have seen...

Perjury was based on an improper spin on the events - Clinton answered the question truthfully per the court's definitions. The court explicitly defined sex as male-female vaginal intercourse, which Clinton and Lewinsky had not done; therefore Clinton was correct in answering that he had not had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

And that little tidbit should put that matter to rest pretty permanently.

It might, except that that happens not to be how the court defined sexual relations. Here's how the court really defined it:

Definition of Sexual Relations
For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -

(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

(2) contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or

(3) contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

"Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing.

The source for the above is:

http://courttv-web3.courttv.com/archive ... 81798.html

It doesn't matter what you lie about under oath, it's still perjury, and there is no 1st or 2nd or 3rd degree perjury - it's just perjury. A convicted felon can't even vote in this country, and we had a felon serving in the nation's highest elected office. This sort of thing tends to make a mockery of our institutions.

Sure, he lied about the blowjob where anybody using common sense is concerned, but since the court was not using a common sense definition of sex, tough luck. There was no perjury, and therefore no felon in the office of POTUS. And this being the case, if Bush went to war with bogus premises and intentionally misled the public about the reasons for war, he looks decidedly worse than Clinton ever did.

Edi

Clinton committed perjury. The only discord on this topic is that people seem to think he was ok by the definition of sexual relations. Well, let's take a look at it. Sexual Relations, for the purpose of Clinton's deposition, was defined as "contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person". Bill Clinton testified that he never touched Lewinsky, he only received oral sex. However, Lewinsky testified that he fondled her breasts on at least seven occasions, and "manually stimulated" her twice, once to orgasm. Tell me how those events don't satisfy the definition of sexual relations as defined by the court. You can't. And Lewinsky's testimony is credible because she was able to recall dates and times of meetings and phone calls that took place whille she was with Clinton, and these things are borne out by White House phone logs and other material.

So I'm sorry to pop your balloon on this, but yeah, Clinton really did perjure himself.

The sole evidence of perjury on the part of Mr. Clinton was taken under a condition of entrapment. Explicitly defining "sex" in one way, gaining a truthful answer under that definition and then using a definition wherein that truthful answer becomes false in order to procure a conviction is, in fact, entrapment - which is why the impeachment trial never occurred. Evidence taken by entrapment is inadmissible, which you - being a police officer - ought to know. So sorry, try again. IIRC, entrapment is also a felony, as well.

The mockery of our institutions was in the Republican Party being so eager to "get" Mr. Clinton that they were willing to commit a felony in order to remove him from office.

[/quote]

Excuse me, that is not entrapment. In fact, the legal definition of entrapment bears no resemblance whatsoever to what you just described.

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case. In slightly different words: government agents entrap someone if three things occur:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

I don't see how perjury comes anywhere close to fitting this definition. I've never heard of anyone being entrapped into perjuring themselves. I can't even see how that would be possible. That would pretty much require government agents to talk Clinton into perjuring himself, or pressure him into perjuring himself.

There are other points raised since my last post I'd like to respond to, but I worked all night, I've been in traffic court all morning, and I have part time in three hours, I've got to get some sleep. I'll try to catch up on all this stuff later.

[Iceberg]

OK, Perinquus, let me ask you this:

Why, if Clinton actually did perjure himself, did the Senate refuse to try him? If the evidence was as ironclad as the Republican Party would like you to believe, why did the Senate not hold the impeachment trial that they would otherwise be constitutionally charged to do?

At any rate, Clinton is NOT at issue, at issue is the fact that George W. Bush is a lousy president, and a liar who drew America into a "preemptive war" against a nation which posed us no threat at all. Bringing up Clinton is a red herring, as his behavior has no bearing on an analysis of George W. Bush.

[Beowulf]

This being the case, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists from 9/11 were actually from? Why are we not forcing sanctions on Saudi Arabia? We entered Afghanistan to get to Al Queda headquarters. We have "intelligence" (I hesitate to use that word with our track record the past two years) that states the Saudis knew of these terrorists and their connection to Al Queda, so why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

I don't suppose that you've gathered that that would cause a world wide depression...

[Sobbastchianno]

This being the case, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists from 9/11 were actually from? Why are we not forcing sanctions on Saudi Arabia? We entered Afghanistan to get to Al Queda headquarters. We have "intelligence" (I hesitate to use that word with our track record the past two years) that states the Saudis knew of these terrorists and their connection to Al Queda, so why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?

I don't suppose that you've gathered that that would cause a world wide depression...

Sure I have, but that does not justify AT ALL our attack on Iraq for a terrorism threat when Saudi Arabia was actually the "home" of Al Queda. If we were in this for terrorism, which is the perported reason that prompted the response I gave above, then what difference should economics have made. Oh, we pick on Iraq because they were economically weak due to 12 year of UN Sanctions, and use terrorism to justify it. Smack of imperialism to me.

[SirNitram]

Exactly when did people on this board because so fuckin' Naive that they think a President getting laid and lying about it is either unique or damaging? Good fuck, FDR had a mistress when he couldn't fuckin' walk, is he now a man of 'little or no integrity'? Modern Republicans make me sick. Democrats too, most of hte time, but mostly right now it's the Republicans.