You nailed that one, Dys! Just imagine: booming economy, deficit well under control, the world still respects us, and we're not at war.
perc
No, I really disagree on that. All 'crimes' have varying degrees of severity depending upon consequence.
Yup---you really nailed that one------every bedroom in the White would have a price on it------there would be a huge phalic symbol in front of the White House---UBL would be King of the middle east and in control of the oil fields-----The price of gas here would be $4.00 per gallon---- Clinton, Chirac and Schroeder would be chums
and Israel would no longer exist.
Yup---you really nailed that one Dys
perception; very interesting interpretation you give, my statement "clinton would have been elected to a 3rd term" was based on polls and did not constitute a value judgement, in your infinite wisdom you managed to spin one for me. bias is reading? or just bias against me?
Dys
No bias against you----just giving a different perspective to Tartars
speculation of how wonderful life would be with Clinton still as President.
perception "Yup---you really nailed that one Dys"
Ho Hum
You guys "spun" me out----off to bed.
Honesty from our political leaders is something we must demand. But not regarding what they smoked in school or what they
Hear, hear,Blatham.
Another article. c.i.
********************
The 'Shock and Awe' News Conference
By Mary McGrory
Sunday, March 9, 2003; Page B07
The president's news conference was meant to be a demonstration -- as he stands on the brink of unleashing "shock and awe" on Iraq -- of how much he hates war. One of many unasked questions was: Does he hate war as much as he hates news conferences?
The president has a profound aversion to being called on to explain himself, and he has conveyed this not only by keeping to eight the number of news conferences he has held since taking the oath but also by using body language that conveys his resentment at the process.
He had obviously been counseled to be calm; characteristically, he
overdid it, and appeared comatose. Message: I am not a bully.
He kept saying war could still be averted, but never said how. He said he respected the opinions of dissenting nations and then declared we will not be deterred from going it alone.
The strangest thing was his way of recognizing reporters. He was going by a chart that had the names and the order in which he was to call on them. "This is scripted," he said in an aside. What he did was to meld the name of the reporter he was about to recognize into the sentence he was uttering on some great matter. Without any pause or inflection, he made the name part of his declaration. It tended to deprive what he was saying of any seriousness or
significance.
Example: "The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people, John King."
The president is aware that while his performance as frontier sheriff fighting terrorism still goes down well, if slightly less well, in the country, it has bombed in the world. Old Europe is miffed, and our closest neighbors, Mexico and Canada, are offended by crude hints of vengeance if they vote in the United Nations against us -- against war. We'll be friends again, he said.
He made a point of our solicitude for the Iraqi people, about our elaborate plans to avoid what up until now the military has referred to cheerfully as "collateral damage." High-tech, laser-guided bombing and sharper intelligence will seemingly avoid a repetition of the 3,000 casualties in Baghdad in the first Bush War.
All week the brass has been out emphasizing a concern for Iraqi citizens that Saddam Hussein has never shown. A briefer at the Pentagon emphasized the need to be nice if we intended to stay and mold Iraq into a democracy.
Supreme commander Gen. Tommy Franks injected a note of reality. He was making no promises: War is war, he said in effect.
The Pentagon is torn between bragging about what it can do and boasting about what it won't do as we liberate Iraq. In the middle of the stream of reassurances of our mercy was a jarring reminder of our overwhelming power. The Air Force unveiled a 20,000-pound bomb, which creates its own mushroom cloud, without saying where it would be used. The pope sent over a cardinal for an eleventh-hour appeal to the Oval Office. The pope was trying to warn the president of the baleful consequences in the Arab world of invading a Muslim country.
Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni made the same point before a congressional hearing. His nightmare was the prospect of seeing, on a split TV screen, Israelis killing Arabs on the West Bank and Americans killing Arabs in Iraq.
He suggested it might stimulate enlistments in al Qaeda.
Bush does not like to hear about the consequences of his obsession and deals harshly with those who discuss them. The most severe punishment was meted out to Larry Lindsey, his erstwhile economic adviser, who put the bill for the war in Iraq at $200 billion. He was fired.
Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army's chief of staff, committed the error of truth-telling and was set down hard. When asked, he estimated that it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to occupy Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz landed on him. "Way off the mark," he steamed. Bush said at his news conference, almost airily, that the costs of the war would be taken care of in a supplemental appropriation.
In the Bush circle, zeal is much prized. Niccolo Machiavelli's advice to courtiers is followed: "Do not question the ends of the prince -- just tell him how to best do what he wants to do."
Bush insists that war or peace is all up to Hussein. To the American people he says, remember 9/11, trust me.
As he said at his news conference, "when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
In other words, let the shock and awe begin.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
It is a species of madness.
I say it again.
sumac
Tartarin wrote:Lying to the public about a private, personal matter is hardly on the same level as what North did, what Bush is doing, what Nixon did. Clinton was impeached. North was lionized, Bush is still in the White House, and Nixon had a gentle, well-lined retirement.
Clinton was impeached for using the presidency to obstruct an investigation. "Lying" is putting it mildly, and is not, in fact, accurate. That some people think it was okay for him to misuse his office in this way simply because the underlying acts he was attempting to cover up are trivial, I'd remind them that people murder for trivial things like to cover up an affair, and the triviality of the underlying acts don't change the seriousness of the crime committed trying to hide those trivial acts.
In reality, what we see here is typical "it's no big deal if my guy does it, but it is if your guy does". Dolts on both ends of the political spectrum make this argument.
Claire Short, a minister in Blair's government has gone public today with the fact that if Blair sides with Bush and invades Iraq in defiance of the second UN resolution, should it be vetoed or go against the US/UK stance, then she will resign her ministerial post. There are thought to be at least another 10 members of Blair's government that would take the same course of action.
Thanks for mentioning this, hiama!
The BBC article related to the above response:
Short may resign over Iraq crisis
Quote:Excerpts from the interview with the international development secretary, Clare Short, on BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour.
published by The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,911125,00.html
Ms Short was asked by Andrew Rawnsley if she would consider resigning if there was no mandate from the UN for war. She said: "Absolutely, there's no question about that.
"If there is not UN authority for military action or if there is not UN authority for the reconstruction of the country, I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the UN, and I will resign from the government.
"I think it's time for cards on the table. People are speculating and making all sorts of statements about my intentions. I think I owe it to my colleagues in the government and members of the Labour party to just be truthful about my position. It's the time to say what my intentions are."
Asked whether she would have less influence in the reconstruction of Iraq after military conflict if she left the Department for International Development, she said:
"I think I could add a bit if I stayed, but it's a very, very, very good department and you can't stay and defend the indefensible in order to do some other things that you think need doing. I can rely on others, I think, to do what is right to rebuild Iraq."
Had the prime minister acted recklessly, Rawnsley asked her.
"I think the whole atmosphere of the current situation is deeply reckless", she replied, "reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the UN in this disorderly world - which is wider than Iraq - [which] the whole world needs for the future, reckless with our government, reckless with his own future, position and place in history. It's extraordinarily reckless, I'm very surprised by it.
"My own view is that allowing the world to be so bitterly divided - the division in Europe, the sense of anger and injustice in the Middle East - is very, very dangerous. We're undermining the UN. It's a recruiting sergeant for terrorism, there's a risk of a divided world, with a weakened UN and we shouldn't be doing it like this."
Asked whether Mr Blair and the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, were aware of her concerns, she added:
"I have a good relationship and frequent discussions with both of them. But what worries me is that we've got the old spin back and we have detailed discussions either personally or in the cabinet and then the spin the next day is we're ready for war."
She said giving Iraq a deadline of just eight days to cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors or face military action was not the best way to deal with the situation.
"We should have used our leverage with the US to say the roadmap to Palestinain statehood by 2005, which has been agreed by the EU, the US, the UK and Russia, should be published and the US must commit to it, so the Middle East know that this is about justice and the rule of law, not just about American power, because of course the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a complete breach of international law.
"We should make progress on that and then we should be saying Saddam is not going to get away with it for any more. I think you could get a world where we see the UN in authority, justice in the Middle East, proper care for the people of Iraq, because at the moment preparations to care for the humanitarian aftermath of any military conflict are not properly in place."
Tres -- it's not a political thing, it's a values thing. As others have pointed out already and eloquently.
Amazingly Clare Short says Tony Blair acts recklessly on Sunday, and Monday morning turns up for work. (She's not been fired, yet)
Its rumoured Blair takes the view "Its better to have her in the tent ****ing out than outside ****ing in"
It was not specified whether she was expected to stand for this.
(Joke Blatham, joke)
Sidebar, re: the memo alleged to have come from NSA about US spying at the UN.
Info from another source on the Observer article about US spying at the UN accusation and what looks to be a more original edition of the alleged NSA memo -- FYI:
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_2003/spying_on_un.html
and some chat about the Brit spellings in the memo:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04518.html
The reason I went looking for this stuff was because I occasionally test "major media sources" for anti-administration information (and allegations) found in non-US major media just to see what our guys are willing to print! In this case, the NYTimes search engine kept refusing Frank Koza's (the alleged author of the memo's) name, hanging my computer each time. So I persisted, typed in "Bush" and immediately got through the front door, retyped "Koza" in the search box on that page, and got transferred out to Google which gave plenty of sources. The above were just two that caught my eye. The NYTimes has not, evidently, covered that story as of yesterday...
Hope you all will do the same now and then -- when you see anti-administration info in a
reliable non-US source, try to see if any mainstream US media have covered it and if not email the editors, give them the original source (in the Guardian, Le Monde, whatever reputable source you got it from) and ask why the story hasn't been covered by them.
Good point, Tartarin. Got to let them know that some people, outside their own organization/industry, are noticing.
You are so reasonable that I thought you must be a woman. (BTW, I loved your response to my mistake. 
)