POL-Gingrich had affair while spearheading crusade to get Clinton

[Flasch186]

LOL



Gingrich had affair during Clinton probe

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer 36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against
President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
ADVERTISEMENT

"The honest answer is yes," Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. "There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards."

Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.

"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."

Widely considered a mastermind of the Republican revolution that swept Congress in the 1994 elections, Gingrich remains wildly popular among many conservatives. He has repeatedly placed near the top of Republican presidential polls recently, even though he has not formed a campaign.

Gingrich has said he is waiting to see how the Republican field shapes up before deciding in the fall whether to run.

Reports of extramarital affairs have dogged him for years as a result of two messy divorces, but he has refused to discuss them publicly.

Gingrich, who frequently campaigned on family values issues, divorced his second wife, Marianne, in 2000 after his attorneys acknowledged Gingrich's relationship with his current wife, Callista Bisek, a former congressional aide more than 20 years younger than he is.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.

Gingrich married Marianne months after the divorce.

"There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," he said in the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm ... not proud of."

Gingrich's congressional career ended in 1998 when he abruptly resigned from Congress after poor showings from Republicans in elections and after being reprimanded by the House ethics panel over charges that he used tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.

[MrBug708]

You're surprised?

Who cares though?

[Flasch186]

definitely deserved the accurate commentary of my reaction above.

[JPhillips]

I know a former Congressman that caught Gingrich in an elevator with a woman other than his wife. He said it was one of the most uncomfortable moments he's ever had. They all knew what was going on and they were political opponents. Fortunately for Gingrich the Congressman in question kept the information to himself.

[Buccaneer]

Welcome to 10 years ago.

[Raiders Army]

To catch a thief...

[MrBug708]

definitely deserved the accurate commentary of my reaction above.

THAT FUCKING BASTARD!

[MrBug708]

To catch a thief...

Sleeping with the enemy?

[PSUColonel]

1. Newt did not obstruct justice

2. Newt did not "do the deed" inside the oval office.

[larrymcg421]

Are the conservatives now dropping the character debate and arguing the rule of law? That's oddly "Clintonesque" of them.

[JPhillips]

No, it's not about rule of law. The argument is always simple, "Clinton was worse."

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Newt did not "do the deed" inside the oval office.

Thank god.

[Karlifornia]

People need to ge their own lives rather than getting wrapped up in the personal lives of politicians. If you expect any politician has a moral code higher than anyone else's, than it's your own fault when you get dissapointed.

[TroyF]

Are the conservatives now dropping the character debate and arguing the rule of law? That's oddly "Clintonesque" of them.


I really only had two issues with the Clinton affair:

1) He did it in the oval office and by all accounts he was even doing it while on the phone on business.

2) He lied to a grand jury about it.

The second is by far and away the biggest thing. I'm not sure how anyone can be naive enough to think there weren't Republicans having affairs. There are also gay republicans in the closet, republicans that lie, republicans that are horrific parents and just about any other vice you can imagine.

This is an interesting story in the "haha" type of way. And Newt should certainly be ashamed of himself. Also, it'd be nice if some of the more outspoken Republicans would admit that they aren't perfect either. (something that works on both sides of the aisle, as most of this stuff) Yet the comparison to Clinton is pretty ridiculous too. Unless you can come up with some grand jury testimony where Newt was lying, there is a fairly large difference in the two situations. I'm not really sure you can get by that if you aren't biased.

To each his/her own I guess.

[Flasch186]

...hence the LOL

not much more needs to be said, troyF put it best...LOL and thats about it. but somebody here is going to flip out i am sure.

[EagleFan]

yawn...

[larrymcg421]

I really only had two issues with the Clinton affair:

1) He did it in the oval office and by all accounts he was even doing it while on the phone on business.

2) He lied to a grand jury about it.

The second is by far and away the biggest thing. I'm not sure how anyone can be naive enough to think there weren't Republicans having affairs. There are also gay republicans in the closet, republicans that lie, republicans that are horrific parents and just about any other vice you can imagine.

This is an interesting story in the "haha" type of way. And Newt should certainly be ashamed of himself. Also, it'd be nice if some of the more outspoken Republicans would admit that they aren't perfect either. (something that works on both sides of the aisle, as most of this stuff) Yet the comparison to Clinton is pretty ridiculous too. Unless you can come up with some grand jury testimony where Newt was lying, there is a fairly large difference in the two situations. I'm not really sure you can get by that if you aren't biased.

To each his/her own I guess.

I don't see how I'm biased because I don't like Clinton either. I just found it amusing that the conservatives first response to this story was that Newt didn't break any laws. This seems to be a long way from when character was such an important issue.

I made the Clinton comparison because he frequently defended his obviously wrong actions by saying he technically didn't break the law. He even defended his grand jury testimony this way. So yes it seemed very "Clintonesque" that the conservatives first response to this story is not about Newt's hypocrisy or his immorality, but the legality of his actions.

I also find it odd to suggest that I was biased. Not everyone who hates Newt likes Clinton. And not everyone that hates Clinton likes Newt. The world is much more interesting than that.

[Dutch]

Who cares about Gingrich? As for President Clinton...

[Chris Rock]Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what Bill did...but I understand.[/Chris Rock]

[Glengoyne]

I still like Newt, and I don't believe he was anywhere near as whacko as the Dems portrayed him. He was good for this country....period. It took Delay and company years to undo all of the reforms that Newt essentially put in place. Thankfully the Dems have put some of them back into effect. I think I'd vote for Newt, but I doubt it will come to that.


On the topic here. Somehow even more than the perjury, I was bothered by Clinton going to his secretary and trying to influence her testimony. Yes lying under oath is a bad deal, but face it. He had to choose between coming clean and paying the price immediately... simply keeping up the lie. He was in a tough spot, that arguably he shouldn't have been in, in the first place. The obstruction of justice was simply to cover his ass by placing others at risk. That was, to me, where his character was really revealed. It was also the one charge I felt merited impeachment.

[Alan T]

I guess the suprising thing to me is that this is new news? I could have sworn this was a big deal back like 15 years ago or so. Maybe its because he was my congressman, we talked about it more back then.

I didn't vote for him then, I wouldn't vote for him now.. but this is a pretty rediculous story. (enough so that I'm posting in a political thread which breaks one of my rules never to do.) :)

I had assumed there was a new affair or something, and came to check it out thinking.. gee some people never change.

[Tekneek]

I am stunned. You mean both Democrats AND Republicans in Washington, D.C. seem to have problems with ethics and integrity? I never knew. I couldn't tell by the way they governed that they were likely to have other problems, too. Go figure.

Yet, people still think throwing the same sorts of people up there, under the same party banners, over and over is suddenly going to find a solution. They just keep doing the same things year after year hoping it will start working. That's the bigger story.

[Flasch186]

I guess the suprising thing to me is that this is new news? I could have sworn this was a big deal back like 15 years ago or so. Maybe its because he was my congressman, we talked about it more back then.

I didn't vote for him then, I wouldn't vote for him now.. but this is a pretty rediculous story. (enough so that I'm posting in a political thread which breaks one of my rules never to do.) :)

I had assumed there was a new affair or something, and came to check it out thinking.. gee some people never change.

To me it is new. I had no idea he had had an affair....ever. He may have changed though since then, I dunno.

[kurtism]

This guy gets it!

[Subby]

Come on...take one look at the guy. Newt Gingrich is a snatch magnet.

If I was PSU I would have a crush on him too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I had no idea he had had an affair....ever.

For real?

The first woman to claim an affair with him appeared in '95 in a magazine article, although I don't recall him ever acknowledging that one which allegedly took place in '77. I don't remember that getting much play though.

The one I'm surprised you didn't know about it was the one widely believed to have involved the woman who eventually became his second wife. They married less than two years after he divorced wife #1 (who was, you may recall, one of his teachers in high school) and it was generally assumed that their relationship began while he was still married.

And then the one in the latest story involves a woman he was involved with while still married to wife #2, which I don't recall hearing anything about until he admitted to it.

[JPhillips]

Adding to Jon, the story has always been that he left his first wife while she was battling cancer and told his second wife that he wanted a divorce on Mother's Day.

[Flasch186]

For real?

The first woman to claim an affair with him appeared in '95 in a magazine article, although I don't recall him ever acknowledging that one which allegedly took place in '77. I don't remember that getting much play though.

The one I'm surprised you didn't know about it was the one widely believed to have involved the woman who eventually became his second wife. They married less than two years after he divorced wife #1 (who was, you may recall, one of his teachers in high school) and it was generally assumed that their relationship began while he was still married.

And then the one in the latest story involves a woman he was involved with while still married to wife #2, which I don't recall hearing anything about until he admitted to it.

In my defense, I was pretty ignorant to the breadth of politics back then. The first controversial thing I kind of remember but not really without doing some research was Iran Contra but not much, then "Read my lips", then Monica Lewinsky. Those were all pre-liking-politics, and debating....now I really get into this stuff. So I guess this fell into the "I didnt pay attention phase of my life." regarding politics. Although remember I liked Perot a bit at one time. I mean, I liked politics, but I wasnt into debating and discussing it. It was stuff, y'know. I dont know how to explain it, it was just different back then. It wasnt even that long ago, but I just looked at politics differently...now its almost like a hobby. I dunno.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In my defense, ...

No defense needed AFAIC, it just surprised me that you didn't know about that stuff since I consider it part & parcel of the Gingrich package it's been around so long.

Then again, take my perspective with a grain of salt too. For a couple of years, I covered Newt since he was the congressman for the district where I was working in radio. In a related aside, to this day I have never met anyone more adept at assessing a room full of people & figuring out who to work & how to work them. Watching him in a small room is an absolute experience in the art of working people (no sexual innuendo intended or should be implied ;) )

[Honolulu_Blue]

I really only had two issues with the Clinton affair:

1) He did it in the oval office and by all accounts he was even doing it while on the phone on business.

That's an issue? Come on now. The man should be praised for being able to conduct business while getting a BJ. Our current president can't even watch TV and eat a pretzel at the same time. . .

[panerd]

I can't believe I am defending Clinton here (the guy has no moral compass whatsoever) but there seems to be a lot of revisionist history here. Are you guys all Shorty's age or do you not remember the 24-7 coverage of this scandal. My recollection were three main talking points...

1. "How am I going to explain to my 5-year old daughter what a blowjob is?"
2. Vote republican. Family values first!
3. This country has lost God.

Only after the Gingrich affair etc did the number #1 focus become the lying and perjury. Do I place the blame on Republicans who did have family values and believe the three points above? Of course not. Is Gingrich a lying hyopocritical asshole? Of course.

[Butter]

I thought the whole "Newt divorced his wife while she was on her deathbed" was a well known attack point for years now. I know it was a big one back when I actually paid attention to this stuff.

[Young Drachma]

I keep reading about this as if it was some sort of news. I mean, who DIDN'T know that his current wife was the one he'd been having an affair with during that time? I mean, I thought that was common knowledge. But maybe they're running out of things to write about.

[Warhammer]

I can't believe I am defending Clinton here (the guy has no moral compass whatsoever) but there seems to be a lot of revisionist history here. Are you guys all Shorty's age or do you not remember the 24-7 coverage of this scandal. My recollection were three main talking points...

1. "How am I going to explain to my 5-year old daughter what a blowjob is?"
2. Vote republican. Family values first!
3. This country has lost God.

Only after the Gingrich affair etc did the number #1 focus become the lying and perjury. Do I place the blame on Republicans who did have family values and believe the three points above? Of course not. Is Gingrich a lying hyopocritical asshole? Of course.

Actually, I think the Dems were the ones that changed the tone of the discussion. They assessed the situation and knew what the Repubs response to it would be if they turned it into a sex scandal. The end result was the discussion became more and more about Lewinsky and less and less about the perjury and obstruction of justice. Their tactics were so successful that today many people think the whole issue was about sex with the intern.

I had a negotiations class at this time and our prof was a consultant to many guys up in Washington. He claimed it was a high stakes game of bluff. Also, Newt's affairs were well known at the time and one reason why the religious right didn't like him.

[Tekneek]

My recollection were three main talking points...

1. "How am I going to explain to my 5-year old daughter what a blowjob is?"
2. Vote republican. Family values first!
3. This country has lost God.

Only after the Gingrich affair etc did the number #1 focus become the lying and perjury. Do I place the blame on Republicans who did have family values and believe the three points above? Of course not. Is Gingrich a lying hyopocritical asshole? Of course.

For me, it had everything to do with lying and nothing to do with the other stuff. I know those were the "talking points", because I remember them as well, but they really didn't hold much water back then and they certainly hold less today.

[JPhillips]

Actually, I think the Dems were the ones that changed the tone of the discussion.

Of course you do. One thing I'm always amazed by is how the Right views Democrats as this hyper-competent, hyper-coordinated, monolithic, super group.

[Warhammer]

Of course you do. One thing I'm always amazed by is how the Right views Democrats as this hyper-competent, hyper-coordinated, monolithic, super group.

Are you taking this as some sort of attack? Geez, it's nothing of the sort. I give them credit for being able to do it.

I think what Clinton did was reprehensible and on the order of what Nixon did. Yet, he was able to get off with basically no more than people shaking their heads about how much presidential standards had gone downhill since Kennedy was nailing Marilyn Monroe...

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think what Clinton did was reprehensible and on the order of what Nixon did. Yet, he was able to get off with basically no more than people shaking their heads about how much presidential standards had gone downhill since Kennedy was nailing Marilyn Monroe...

What Clinton did pales in comparison to what the current administration has done. All. Time. Low.

Lying about getting a BJ in the Oval Office is one thing, lying about starting an entire war and outing a CIA agent (that's just the tip of the iceberg) that's quite another.

[Desnudo]

That's an issue? Come on now. The man should be praised for being able to conduct business while getting a BJ. Our current president can't even watch TV and eat a pretzel at the same time. . .

I was for giving him the boot, but I agree that a bj under the desk is a great image.

[Warhammer]

What Clinton did pales in comparison to what the current administration has done. All. Time. Low.

Lying about getting a BJ in the Oval Office is one thing, lying about starting an entire war and outing a CIA agent (that's just the tip of the iceberg) that's quite another.

The investigation with Clinton was not about him getting a BJ in the Oral Office. You just proved my point...

Regarding the current administration, all intelligence data prior to the war pointed to Iraq having WMD programs. Hell, Clinton basically said as much too. There are tons of clips of everyone on both sides of the aisle saying Saddam had WMD programs in the late 90s. So saying the the current administration was lying to start a war is pretty weak. Additionally, the whole issue about outing a CIA agent is ridiculous because it was well known that Plame was a CIA agent, but that is a side issue.

Now, if you want to say that Bush wanted a pretext for going into Iraq, and WMDs was a convenient excuse, I'll give you that. If you want to say that Bush screwed things up in Iraq after the invasion, I'll give you that.

You know, the whole global warming debate and Iraq situation are somewhat similar. Both arguments follow the same logical path:

Issue (global warming/WMDs) - If we don't resolve issue we'll die! (too hot, we'll melt/terrorists bombing cities with WMDs) - We can't afford to wait until it is too late (cause the results will occur before we act, etc.) - Take action now!

Back to the topic....

I could come up with a large number of reasons why we should have gone into Iraq outside of WMDs. The big problem that we had, was that we forced a large number of Iraqis into the unemployment lines when we toppled the government. With no job and no money, it is very easy to see why there is such a large degree of resentment towards the US. If we had helped Iraq rebuild itself with Iraqi hands, that would have gone a long way towards stabilizing the country and the economy. Additionally, I blame Bush for not sealing the damn border with Iran and Syria. For crying out loud, we know that supplies for the insurgents are coming across the border, and we weren't securing them? WTF?!?!?!?

My point is, I can understand people disagreeing about Iraq, but saying that we lied to get in there is a little stretched. It might even come about that the security secrets sold to the Chinese under Clinton/Gore are going to be a bigger issue down the road than Iraq.

[JPhillips]

It might even come about that the security secrets sold to the Chinese under Clinton/Gore are going to be a bigger issue down the road than Iraq.

Probably not more than the Bush admin posting plans for a nuclear bomb on the internet.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Are you taking this as some sort of attack? Geez, it's nothing of the sort. I give them credit for being able to do it.

I think what Clinton did was reprehensible and on the order of what Nixon did. Yet, he was able to get off with basically no more than people shaking their heads about how much presidential standards had gone downhill since Kennedy was nailing Marilyn Monroe...

The investigation with Clinton was not about him getting a BJ in the Oral Office. You just proved my point...

I wasn't referring to the investigation, but rather people's perception about his "moral compass" and how low he brought down "presidential standards."

To me it's crazy that because of the Lewinsky thing (and other marital discretions) people think Clinton has no morals, but some how continue to believe Bush has morals and is, actually, some sort of champion of morals/family values. It's mind-boggling.

[Warhammer]

Probably not more than the Bush admin posting plans for a nuclear bomb on the internet.

They've been on there for years regardless of whether or not the Bush admin had posted them.

The issue with getting the bomb isn't so much how to build it, its having the capabilities and the machine abilities to do it.

Guidance system for missiles is a completely different animal.

[Warhammer]

I wasn't referring to the investigation, but rather people's perception about his "moral compass" and how low he brought down "presidential standards."

To me it's crazy that because of the Lewinsky thing (and other marital discretions) people think Clinton has no morals, but some how continue to believe Bush has morals and is, actually, some sort of champion of morals/family values. It's mind-boggling.

I'll bite, I think Clinton is amoral. He will do anything to get what he wants. Bush has morals, but whether or not you agree with them is another issue. I don't think he is a champion for family values though.

[st.cronin]

This thread title really needs a SPOILER warning.

[MrBigglesworth]

Issue (global warming/WMDs) - If we don't resolve issue we'll die! (too hot, we'll melt/terrorists bombing cities with WMDs) - We can't afford to wait until it is too late (cause the results will occur before we act, etc.) - Take action now!
Your premise that as many people think the global warming evidence is a 'slam dunk' as thought the WMD evidence was is incorrect. For example, the following were not sure of Iraq's WMD program: France, Germany, US State Department, IAEA, Hans Blix, most if not a majority of the CIA, UK (according to the Downing Street Memo), most of the rest of the world, etc.

[stevew]

Newt's been one of those guys that has pretty decent ideas on some things, but his personal morality rivals Clinton's and I do not think he would make a good president.

[Warhammer]

Your premise that as many people think the global warming evidence is a 'slam dunk' as thought the WMD evidence was is incorrect. For example, the following were not sure of Iraq's WMD program: France, Germany, US State Department, IAEA, Hans Blix, most if not a majority of the CIA, UK (according to the Downing Street Memo), most of the rest of the world, etc.

Kerry, Clinton (both of them), McCain, and others are all on tape as saying that Saddam had things running in the late 90s.

Per the rest of what you have in there, France and Germany (Russia too) had separate reasons for claiming that Iraq didn't have WMDs, they were owed a good amount of money by Saddam that they wouldn't be getting if he was overthrown. Most of the rest of the world wanted us to wait for inspections to take place, they didn't necessarily say there weren't WMDs. Also, if you say that this comprises most of the world, you can say that most of the world doesn't subscribe to global warming. There are plenty of people out there who question global warming and the factors that go into it.

IAEA and Hans Blix are essentially one and the same as far as this fight goes, since Blix was the one doing the inspections for them.

The rest of the items, I am not sure if I believe them or not.

In my heart, I truly believe that Saddam had most of his weapons programs moved into Syria during the lead up into invasion. I have a buddy who was in the service who claims that there was abnormal activity along the Iraq - Syria border prior to the war, and that the vehicles in some cases were tracked to some of the top sites suspected of being installations for the weapons programs.

Plus, the nature of how Saddam was captured leads me to believe that he fully expected to return to power at a later date. That with the addition that several of the top Iraqi generals volunteered that there were weapons programs and gave us locations to inspect. The fact that this information was volunteered, leads me to believe that the programs were up and running and were moved in the lead up to the war.

That said, I am probably one of the few people that felt we had reason to go into Iraq even if WMDs weren't an issue. I just think we completely bungled the backend of this thing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The investigation with Clinton was not about him getting a BJ in the Oral Office. You just proved my point...

Regarding the current administration, all intelligence data prior to the war pointed to Iraq having WMD programs. Hell, Clinton basically said as much too. There are tons of clips of everyone on both sides of the aisle saying Saddam had WMD programs in the late 90s. So saying the the current administration was lying to start a war is pretty weak. Additionally, the whole issue about outing a CIA agent is ridiculous because it was well known that Plame was a CIA agent, but that is a side issue.

I think there is a difference between saying that Iraq had WMD programs and then declaring war based on that presumption. If you are going to act on that information, I think you have a duty to check, double-check, and triple-check your sources and be as sure as you possible can that the information is legit.

The WMD thing aside, there was also the strong insinuation (if not out right declaration) on the administration's behalf that Sadam/Iraq played some role in 9/11 or at least had strong ties to/with Al Qaeda. If I recall correctly, no such link was ever proven and, in fact, may have been disproven.

[cougarfreak]

I think there is a difference between saying that Iraq had WMD programs and then declaring war based on that presumption. If you are going to act on that information, I think you have a duty to check, double-check, and triple-check your sources and be as sure as you possible can that the information is legit.

The WMD thing aside, there was also the strong insinuation (if not out right declaration) on the administration's behalf that Sadam/Iraq played some role in 9/11 or at least had strong ties to/with Al Qaeda. If I recall correctly, no such link was ever proven and, in fact, may have been disproven.

Freedom! I'm a patriot! Support the troops! 9/11!

[MrBigglesworth]

Kerry, Clinton (both of them), McCain, and others are all on tape as saying that Saddam had things running in the late 90s.

Per the rest of what you have in there, France and Germany (Russia too) had separate reasons for claiming that Iraq didn't have WMDs, they were owed a good amount of money by Saddam that they wouldn't be getting if he was overthrown. Most of the rest of the world wanted us to wait for inspections to take place, they didn't necessarily say there weren't WMDs. Also, if you say that this comprises most of the world, you can say that most of the world doesn't subscribe to global warming. There are plenty of people out there who question global warming and the factors that go into it.

IAEA and Hans Blix are essentially one and the same as far as this fight goes, since Blix was the one doing the inspections for them.

The rest of the items, I am not sure if I believe them or not.

In my heart, I truly believe that Saddam had most of his weapons programs moved into Syria during the lead up into invasion. I have a buddy who was in the service who claims that there was abnormal activity along the Iraq - Syria border prior to the war, and that the vehicles in some cases were tracked to some of the top sites suspected of being installations for the weapons programs.

Plus, the nature of how Saddam was captured leads me to believe that he fully expected to return to power at a later date. That with the addition that several of the top Iraqi generals volunteered that there were weapons programs and gave us locations to inspect. The fact that this information was volunteered, leads me to believe that the programs were up and running and were moved in the lead up to the war.

That said, I am probably one of the few people that felt we had reason to go into Iraq even if WMDs weren't an issue. I just think we completely bungled the backend of this thing.
On second thought, I think this is analogous to global warming, only not in the way that you think it is. There is overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that there were no WMD's (none found pre-invasion, none found post-invasion, US government's own report saying there were none, Niger/centrifuge/etc stories turning out to be bogus, sources discredited, etc), but you choose to believe otherwise based on the fact that a guy you know said that there was abnormal activity on the border before the war. You believe that they had WMD's, but I think that you can see that if it were argued objectively in a court of law there is no way that the evidence would stack up. It would be my opinion that you came to your conclusion based more on your political beliefs than on an objective look at the facts at hand.

[Warhammer]

I think there is a difference between saying that Iraq had WMD programs and then declaring war based on that presumption. If you are going to act on that information, I think you have a duty to check, double-check, and triple-check your sources and be as sure as you possible can that the information is legit.

The WMD thing aside, there was also the strong insinuation (if not out right declaration) on the administration's behalf that Sadam/Iraq played some role in 9/11 or at least had strong ties to/with Al Qaeda. If I recall correctly, no such link was ever proven and, in fact, may have been disproven.

But that is why I am drawing the link between the two. You're right, you would hope that they would double-check and triple-check the sources. They claimed that there was not enough time, just as the global warming crowd is claiming there isn't time in the fight against global warming. Or, like the administration, they claim that their sources are enough to go on.

What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings, but Iraq was not involved with 9/11. What the administration claimed, was that given the risks, they were obliged to pre-emptively attack Iraq to prevent a possible WMD attack by weapons developed in Iraq and delivered by Al Qaeda.

Now, there was no link between 9/11, Iraq, and Al Qaeda. That was proven. What the left claimed was that Bush linked Iraq and 9/11, which never happened.

On second thought, I think this is analogous to global warming, only not in the way that you think it is. There is overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that there were no WMD's (none found pre-invasion, none found post-invasion, US government's own report saying there were none, Niger/centrifuge/etc stories turning out to be bogus, sources discredited, etc), but you choose to believe otherwise based on the fact that a guy you know said that there was abnormal activity on the border before the war. You believe that they had WMD's, but I think that you can see that if it were argued objectively in a court of law there is no way that the evidence would stack up. It would be my opinion that you came to your conclusion based more on your political beliefs than on an objective look at the facts at hand.

There are plenty of reasons for my belief. You choose to believe that global warming is real for the same reasons you accuse me of believing in this. Its really not any different.

Hell, as far as a court of law is concerned OJ was not guilty, so I wouldn't go around using that as support for your case. There are plenty of times where the side that is right, loses the court case.

The sad fact is that there needs to be two sides to every debate. I might disagree with you, but you have every right to believe in whatever it is that you do. I happen to have a number of reasons for my belief. That is all I need. You are basically looking at information from a number of sources that have a variety of different reasons why they would promote a certain agenda. I just think it is sad, that you feel the need to belittle my point of view because it does not line up with yours and feel that I am basically creating a case to back up a view skewed by my political leanings.

Truth be told, I am pretty disgusted with Bush at this point. Outside of Iraq and 9/11 what has he done? I look back at his term much the way I look at Clinton's, a big blank. Sure, there were some important things that he did, but there has been little impact on me, with the exception of the tax break, which happens to be one of the few things that I agree with.

Iraq could have been a crowning achievement. But, the administration did not have a plan for how to deal with the country after the government collapsed. Rather than do the right thing as proven in every successful military campaign against partisans dating back to the early 1000s, we decided to violate the precept of a high force density in the country. Not only that, but we consciously decided not to seal the border of Iraq with Syria or Iran which is where all the supplies for the insurgents have been coming from. We also took away many of the Iraqis jobs without providing alternate means of earning a living. The result was a citizenry ripe to listen to anyone who was willing to help out and provide meals.

We can still win in Iraq. Those who say we can't are really deceiving themselves, or are not willing to do it. That is the only way that the deaths and injuries suffered in this war will be in vain, if we decide to bail now, and leave an unstable Iraq behind. What is required is additional forces, the will and resources to seal the border with Iran and Syria, institute martial law, and the stomach to shoot first and ask questions later. Unfortunately, our leaders have decided that it is best to gild their nests and secure their own position of power, rather than actually do what is best for the country. A free, secure, democratic Iraq would be a huge boon to our country and our position in the middle east. But, for many leaders in this country on both sides of the aisle, there is more personal gain in our failure in Iraq, and so they are engineering that end. While I'm not sure that Bush's side would have the cajones to actually do what needs to be done over there, the side that wants to pull out at all costs is definitely the wrong course.

Sorry for rambling, having a pretty crappy night over here, and I just started typing...

[Raiders Army]

Neither his first name nor his surname elicits a good looking guy. I think this story gives ugly fat guys around the world hope that if they can amass enough wealth and power, they can still bone chicks.

Clinton getting some? pffft.

Gingrich getting some? That's an accomplishment.

[JPhillips]

I'll get into this more if anyone wants, but in summary, you can't have an honest discussion about the runup to the Iraq War and WMD unless you separate chemical/biological weapons from nuclear weapons.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings

False.


What the left claimed was that Bush linked Iraq and 9/11, which never happened.

False again.

This is why the debate is pointless at this stage.

[SackAttack]

Welcome to 10 years ago.

That was my first thought. I'm fairly certain this was news during Penisgate, and that it's getting revived now only because his name keeps coming up as a potential Republican candidate (even though he hasn't announced any intention of even thinking of running).

[Young Drachma]

That was my first thought. I'm fairly certain this was news during Penisgate, and that it's getting revived now only because his name keeps coming up as a potential Republican candidate (even though he hasn't announced any intention of even thinking of running).

He has mentioned that he'd consider running in the fall if there isn't a front runner in the GOP race.

[Dutch]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Warhammer http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/yellow/buttons//viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1415007#post1415007)
What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
False.

Why would President Clinton lie about that?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Warhammer http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/yellow/buttons//viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1415007#post1415007)
What happened with the Saddam/Iraq connection was this. There were some Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and there were a couple of high level meetings
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Why would President Clinton lie about that?

Let me clarify: The 9/11 report states that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence" that these contacts ever developed into a "collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

So, I apologize. Yes, there were meetings but no evidence that it ever amounted to taking any action against the U.S., on 9/11 or anything else. I acknowledge that Warhammer admitted no 9/11 connection, but I got from his statement that he was still contending there was an ongoing relationship to do the U.S. harm, which is false from all the evidence we have.

And I still stand by the statement that to contend Bush did not draw a link between Iraq and 9/11 is not only false but laughable. The response that, well Bush never really said it (but instead the VP and other in the admin. did) is weak. Just watch clips of elections speeches. It's all intertwined. And the most obvious effect of this was looking at the public polls at those times -- the bulk of the public believed there was a connection -- hmm, I wonder where they got that notion from?

[Dutch]

The Clinton administration was pretty adamant about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein having a working relationship. Al Qaeda develops WMD's for Iraq while be smothered by UN Sanctions. In exchange, Al Qaeda will not operate inside Iraq with hostility.

It's seems pretty clear from Clinton Administration documents that Al Qaeda worked to develop WMD's (experimenting on animals mostly) but couldn't complete their efforts by the time of the US overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.

Was the relationship beyond that? If we consider both parties fairly shrewd and overly cautious about the US intelligence at the time, it would stand to reason that they would maintain as little evidence as possible about their cooperation.

The Sunni influenced Al Qaeda and the Sunni influenced Saddam Hussein probably worked together. Just like the Baath party and Al Qaeda work together today in post-Hussein Iraq. It's really not that far of a stretch. But I agree, the proof just wasn't there, and is a big black eye for the world's intelligence agencies, including the Bush and Clinton administrations.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Sunni influenced Al Qaeda and the Sunni influenced Saddam Hussein probably worked together. Just like the Baath party and Al Qaeda work together today in post-Hussein Iraq. It's really not that far of a stretch. But I agree, the proof just wasn't there, and is a big black eye for the world's intelligence agencies, including the Bush and Clinton administrations.
So, to summarize, the fact that there exists absolutely no evidence for something is not evidence that the thing didn't happen, but rather evidence that the world's intelligence agencies screwed up? This seems to be Warhammer's basic rationale too about the WMD's in Iraq. If you operate by this premise, what information would make you revise your thoughts? If there being no evidence of Al-Q and Saddam working together isn't enough, what is? If there being no evidence of WMD's in Iraq isn't enough, what is?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Whatever that belief was, it just didn't justify going to war with Iraq or to consistently conflate the issues to the public to win an election.

[Dutch]

No thanks, I'll use my own words and the summary was already completed.

[MrBigglesworth]

No thanks, I'll use my own words and the summary was already completed.
As I put in my edit, if there being no evidence is not enough to make you think it didn't happen, what WOULD make you think it didn't happen?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I also forgot to add that in addition to the 9/11 report, a senate select committee (under Republican control) also reached the same conclusion that Saddam had "no ties" to al qaeda and that Saddam "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

P.S. Despite this, Bush was quoted as saying "we knew Saddam Hussein harbored Zarqawi".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA&mode=related&search=