BB: You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.

OK, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies to you (although I suspect that you aren't too far from the same opinion ... but I'll let you speak for yourself if you'd care to chime in). See, that was easy. You oght to try it.

OBTW, that would be "credited", not "accredited". Always glad to help with accuracy around here, as long as we're being helpful.

Susu's Hubby: The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

That you think that actions that result in the death of innocents are somehow in a category with all the rest speaks volumes about you ethical belief structure. But FWIW, there was no "PROVEN lying", and furthemore, there is a legal distinction between lying and perjury even if there were any lies shown in Clinton's testimony. There's two other legal requirements for perjury, namely, that the lie be under oath and that it be material. It's the third one here that really is at issue in the "When Clinton lied, no one died" phrase. It's legally permissible to aver falsely that the moon is made of blue cheese in a courtroom ... if this particular bit of information is of no moment to the proceedings. And it is there that Clinton's alleged lies fail the perjury test (and IMNSHO, why Ray settled for the admission he got instead of pursuing a perjury charge). While embarrassing, the fact of whether Clinton did or didn't have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones's suit (and in fact Wright excluded the Lewinsky stuff from the case).   One of the rules of evidence says that things that are intended to embarrass or prejudice a case can be excluded even if relevant based on a balancing of interests. In addition, because of the inflammatory nature of such digging into sexual histiry, there's a set of rules (FRE412-415, IIRC) having to do with when such evidence can be considered (and when such should be left out), and the Lewinsky evidence did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. This makes this line of testimony, while tittilating for panty-sniffers such as Starr, legally immaterial. As such, not only did Clinton's alleged lies not get anyone killed, they were legally permissible because they wre of a sort that is normally NOYB (and certainly none of the court's business). The consequences of Clinton's lies didn't matter at all, really, much less get someone killed. HTH.

Susu's Hubby again: I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

Now you're off in La-La-Land. Even your Republicans (more than one) looked at Foster, and say there's no "there" there. Brown, same thing (a tragic aircraft accident). As for Wellstone, are you suggesting the Dubya maladministration did him in (in 2002, ya'know???   ;-)

BB: IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed,....

A lot of Democrats have said that they approved the Iraq resolution so that the U.N./U.S. would have a strong hand in asking for Saddam's co-operation to resolve the issue (and that they hoped that with this strong hand, Saddam would comply and that hostilities would not be necessary). In fact, this is what happened; Saddam gave us the documents (as best he could, which effort the U.S. pooh-poohed), he let the inspectors in, and they were doing heir jobs and reporting that in fact, the U.S. 'intelligence' was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" and that in fact, Saddam's account of his weapons and programs was reasonably accurate. Strangely enough, the one person clearly mistaken about what happenes was Dubya:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

This is clearly hallucinatory behaviour, or outright lying ("honest mistake" is eliminated as a possibility [even for a doofus like Dubya] by the fact that Dubya repeated this absurd assertion a second time in another speech).

Please feel free to "explain" this behaviour of Dubya any way you want, but I would like you to address it....

...

So in fact, the war was not needed, except to people who value human life as cheaply as you, that seem to think that Saddam refusing to kiss Dubya's rosy is sufficient insult to spend the lives of 2000+ U.S. servicement (and counting) on.

There were no WoMD, and the U.N. inspectors would have found that (and were finding that. We got Saddam to accept inspectors. There's even reports that Saddam had offered to step down (although I'm not clear under what terms and how honestly).

Those apologising for Dubya's mistakes often make the fallacy of bifurcation that there were only two choices: Armed invasion, or letting Saddam do whatever he wanted. Not true, and in fact, there was a perfectly reasonable alternative (the U.N. inspections) that seemed to be working out. But that was unacceptable to Dubya for reasons that are not often examined. I'd like you to explain why.

Bottom line here, Teribus and BB: Lots of people had no problem with asking Saddam to comply, but thought that war should have been the last resort, not the first resort that it seems it was with Dubya, and were indeed quite happy that the threat of "serious consequences" did in fact work. They were even more pleased when it was seeming more and more like the sanctions and previous inspections did in fact do the job (as turned out to be the case), and that Saddam was indeed disarmed and that no armed invasion would be necessary to disarm him.

BB: Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Where have I ever said that I did such a thing?

But Dubya seems to have had a problme with taking "yes: for an answer....

Teribus: I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD.

That's pretty strange. Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing. What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have). But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright. But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission ... they could have sent Bolton, Cheney, or one of the other numbnuts in the Dubya maladministration if all they wanted was some formal turnover ceremonies; instead they sent an actual inspector. It's curious you can't figure this out ... or are you jkust being intellectually dishonest here?

Teribus: A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

No wonder you have all this time to post! Your problem solving skills have you reduced to an irrational ability to leave your own house for fear of errant cricket bats, falling meteors, and the ubiquitous lightning bolt ... not to mention the far more common lorry with shoddy brakes....   ;-) "worst case scenario"   LOL....

Teribus: Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will.

The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there. And their evaluation of the U.S. 'intelligence' was pithily put as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". It was kind of a case of "Who're you gonna believe, Chalabi's drunken thugs and crooks, or your lyin' eyes." Time for a reassessment, I'd say, but such seems to be beyond the cognitive skills of the Dubya maladministration (although in this, they were clearly below the peak of the bell curve, with most Security Council members urging a more cautious and patient approach).

Teribus: Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Oh, quite true. But if you bother reading a newspaper....

Teribus: Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, ...

My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town....

But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?

Teribus: ... in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq.

Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death....

What does that have to do with WoMDs?

And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state (see, e.g. "USSR"; as Stalin said, it's who counts the votes that's important).

Teribus: You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive.

More fallacy of bifurcation (as well as a bit of "straw man" fallacy). See if you can spot your error.

Teribus: In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it,...

... just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism.   ;-)

Cheers,