Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

[BoredShirtless]

A nice solid opinion article, from http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/f ... .dean.wmd/

(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.

Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.

That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.

President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

Should the president get the benefit of the doubt?
When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.

As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.

On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.

First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's though. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.

Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the president is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.

Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

In addition, others in the Bush administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs -- and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.

So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?

After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find -- for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.

So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?

There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world.

A desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit
Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

As the coalition forces gained control of Iraqi cities and countryside, special search teams were dispatched to look for WMDs. None were found.

During the past two and a half months, according to reliable news reports, military patrols have visited over 300 suspected WMD sites throughout Iraq. None of the prohibited weapons were found there.

British and American press reaction to the missing WMDs
British Prime Minister Tony Blair is also under serious attack in England, which he dragged into the war unwillingly, based on the missing WMDs. In Britain, the missing WMDs are being treated as scandalous; so far, the reaction in the U.S. has been milder.

New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has taken Bush sharply to task, asserting that it is "long past time for this administration to be held accountable." "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat," Krugman argued. "If that claim was fraudulent," he continued, "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra." But most media outlets have reserved judgment as the search for WMDs in Iraq continues.

Still, signs do not look good. Last week, the Pentagon announced it was shifting its search from looking for WMD sites, to looking for people who can provide leads as to where the missing WMDs might be.

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs would indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.

But, as Time magazine reported, the leads are running out. According to Time, the Marine general in charge explained that "[w]e've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad," and remarked flatly, "They're simply not there."

Perhaps most troubling, the president has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?

The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President's misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.

Investigating The Iraqi War intelligence reports
Even now, while the jury is still out as to whether intentional misconduct occurred, the President has a serious credibility problem. Newsweek magazine posed the key questions: "If America has entered a new age of pre-emption —when it must strike first because it cannot afford to find out later if terrorists possess nuclear or biological weapons—exact intelligence is critical. How will the United States take out a mad despot or a nuclear bomb hidden in a cave if the CIA can't say for sure where they are? And how will Bush be able to maintain support at home and abroad?"

In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s looking for his wife's killer. But there may be a difference: Unless the members of Administration can find someone else to blame -- informants, surveillance technology, lower-level personnel, you name it -- they may not escape fault themselves.

Congressional committees are also looking into the pre-war intelligence collection and evaluation. Senator John Warner, R-Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee would jointly investigate the situation. And the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans an investigation.

These investigations are certainly appropriate, for there is potent evidence of either a colossal intelligence failure or misconduct -- and either would be a serious problem. When the best case scenario seems to be mere incompetence, investigations certainly need to be made.

Sen. Bob Graham -- a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- told CNN's Aaron Brown, that while he still hopes they finds WMDs or at least evidence thereof, he has also contemplated three other possible alternative scenarios:

One is that [the WMDs] were spirited out of Iraq, which maybe is the worst of all possibilities, because now the very thing that we were trying to avoid, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, could be in the hands of dozens of groups. Second, that we had bad intelligence. Or third, that the intelligence was satisfactory but that it was manipulated, so as just to present to the American people and to the world those things that made the case for the necessity of war against Iraq.

Sen. Graham seems to believe there is a serious chance that it is the final scenario that reflects reality. Indeed, Graham told CNN "there's been a pattern of manipulation by this administration."

Graham has good reason to complain. According to the New York Times, he was one of the few members of the Senate who saw the national intelligence estimate that was the basis for Bush's decisions. After reviewing it, Graham requested that the Bush administration declassify the information before the Senate voted on the administration's resolution requesting use of the military in Iraq.

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggest manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A potential huge scandal if WMDs are still missing
Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

[Ted]

Bush lied to the people and to the rest of the government, which is an impeachable offence.

That's what Clinton was almost impeached for, lying.

[Tsyroc]

Bush lied to the people and to the rest of the government, which is an impeachable offence.

That's what Clinton was almost impeached for, lying.

In Clinton's case it was for lying while he was under oath while testifying in
that stupid Paula Jone's sexual harassment case. Yes it was stupid but he gave his opposition the easy opening by breaking the law.

I don't think that Bush's situation is the same but lying to congress to get them to let you invade a country can't be a good thing. If enough of them get pissed I'm sure they could come up with a good enough reason to vote for an impeachment. Something about failure to uphold the ideals and oaths of officer or something. I don't think it really takes that much other than enough people in congress willing to push for a vote. IIRC Andrew Johnson missed being booted by one vote and he really didn't do anything wrong other than constantly butt heads with congress over what to do with the South after the Civil War.

[NapoleonGH]

bush was impeached for Lying UNDER OATH. Did bush take an oath in a court of law/congress before making those statements? But deliberately misleading the public, et al. might be the only hope we have to get a decent president in 2004 if enough people can be convinced that there are no weapons afterall, bush said basically that we knew where they were, that they had lots, that they had them at every artillery gun ready to fire at us, shouldnt be hard to find. My worry is, how long until we PLANT evidence of wmd?

[NapoleonGH]

Then again I dont think it is a good sign for american democracy if we gotta impeach 2 presidents in a row after not having done it for 140 years.

[Tsyroc]

Then again I dont think it is a good sign for american democracy if we gotta impeach 2 presidents in a row after not having done it for 140 years.

If I'm getting my governor's in the right order Arizona nailed two of them in a row. One was impeached and removed. The other ended up going to jail. We're on our third governor since that pair.

All we need to do to really make our federal government suck is to start recall petitions as soon as someone is elected president. It was one of the things that I thought really sucked about California's politics and it happens almost as much in Arizona. Don't like the outcome of an election start a recall petition so the officer holder will be so busy fighting that and then running for reelection, either in the new election or the regular scheduled one, that they'll never get any work done. A total waste of time and money.

[HemlockGrey]

My worry is, how long until we PLANT evidence of wmd?

Down the slippery slope we go...

[Hamel]

He won't be impeached. Many Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and still believe every ridiculous claim the administration made before, during, and after the war. Even the people who know that Bush lied about simply don't care and are pushing everyone to move on.

[Axis Kast]

Read those quotations again. I garantee you each has a technical "exit" for the man who wants to claim he was misinterpreted.

It's always like that. Hell, most of Colin Powell's statements aren't declarations of fact but of opinion. He acts the master gambler: "If I had to bet, I'd say Iraq has a lot of weapons." That's not fact. That's opinion by somebody in a high place.

And you're right. I really don't care.

[Col. Crackpot]

two words: PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

Clinton committed perjury, and there was overwhelming proof to support that fact.

Clinton's testimony under oath:"i did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewisnsky"

Exhibit A: A blue dress with his jizz on it. clear perjury

Bush made statements based on intel reports he believed to be true. there is no comparason.

if clear undeniable proof surfaces that Bush lied to initiate a war for his profit, i will call for his (and the Vice President's) resognation. but as it is now that is not the case.

[Vympel]

Clinton lied under oath (for what purposes he was made to take that oath, I still have no fucking idea- what a pathetic witch hunt, not that I'm a fan of the guy), Bush hasn't lied under oath.

I'll tell you one thing though- the agreement in the halls of power is that US credibility will plummet if no WMD are found- heck, it is plummeting already. If it weren't for the rank ignorance of the majority of the US populace (41% of whom think Saddam used WMD against US forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom, for fuck's sake- somwhere close to that figure believed WMD had been found), what's happening to Tony Blair would be happening to Bush right now.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003



Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003




But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003



We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

[Oh reallyyyyyyyy?]


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."


Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

It is funny isn't it?

[jegs2]

Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President B

I'd like to tell you all what I know, but as many of you know, I cannot. Suffice it to say: President Bush had every reason to believe what he said, because that is the information the intelligence community gave him. CNN doesn't have all the facts, & so they can get stuffed.

[Vympel]

I'd like to tell you all what I know, but as many of you know, I cannot. Suffice it to say: President Bush had every reason to believe what he said, because that is the information the intelligence community gave him. CNN doesn't have all the facts, & so they can get stuffed.

Of course that was the information that the intelligence community gave him, but it did not arrive at his doorstep fresh from the press. Intelligence can be interpreted various ways- there have been numerous articles circulating with CIA/other insiders complaining of political pressure to come up with evidence in the first place, the Pentagon's OSP simply taking Iraqi WMD as an article of faith ("like they were on a mission from God" as one official put it) and shoehorning all intelligene into that preconcieved notion, as well as the intel community (the British for one) complaining of their intelligence being 'spun' when they said nothing of the kind.

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, what about the possibility that the intelligence community was pressure into altering the evidence? Wasn't there something about going on lately?

[Joe]

The Dems are making a huge political mistake harping on the fact that we've not yet found any WMD in Iraq. If even a relatively small amount of WMD ends up being found in Iraq the Dems will be in a very bad situation.

[Alex Moon]

The Dems are making a huge political mistake harping on the fact that we've not yet found any WMD in Iraq. If even a relatively small amount of WMD ends up being found in Iraq the Dems will be in a very bad situation.

The Democrats are the same ones who urged President Clinton in 1998 to use force if Saddam didn't comply fully with the UN inspections.

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us," Clinton said in February 1998. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act.

"I know the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The American people have to be ready as well," he added.

The words came within weeks of Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, co-sponsored by Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle and a dozen other Democrats.

The resolution condemned "in the strongest possible terms" Iraq's continued threat to international peace and security, and urged then-President Clinton to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end it's weapons of mass destruction programs."

Among the Democratic co-sponsors were Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Max Cleland of Georgia, Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, Bob Graham of Florida and John Kerry of Massachusetts.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62513,00.html

[Yogi]

Forgive my ignorence in the matter, but I was under the impression that if you testify before Congress, that you are under oath.

[Joe]

Forgive my ignorence in the matter, but I was under the impression that if you testify before Congress, that you are under oath.

I should think not; you don't do the whole hand on the Bible thing, nor do you swear an oath.

[SPOOFE]

Bush's reason for going to war:

Saddam didn't provide the evidence of destroying his WMD stash. If he had done it, he could have presented the evidence (hell, a simple official document was all that was needed).

Saddam did not provide this evidence.

Ergo, war.

Whether there is or isn't WMD's in Iraq is utterly immaterial. If there is, Saddam's hidden them well, and it'll take a long time to find them... which means people screaming "Where are the WMD's?!?" are being impatient fuckheads. If there isn't, then that just means Saddam successfully manipulated the US into a war. For what purpose? Probably to get those same impatient fuckheads to cause a ruckus.

Either way, there's a shitload of noise being made by some very stupid people for a very poor reason.

[Stuart Mackey]

Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President B

I'd like to tell you all what I know, but as many of you know, I cannot. Suffice it to say: President Bush had every reason to believe what he said, because that is the information the intelligence community gave him. CNN doesn't have all the facts, & so they can get stuffed.

Lol, facts..you say that like it matters in politics . The media can make or break a politian, if the intelligence supplied to Bush was faulty or was manipulated and distorted to fit a given POV, then heads must roll.

Quite honestly the days are long gone when any democratic leader can use the exuse of protecting information sources to advance a political agenda that involves going to war. It is especially wrong when that information is distortrd to fit a prconceived conclution then presented as fact to the voting public.

[weemadando]

Shit yes, deceiving the public into going to war has got to be impeachable, especially if lying about who you had and hadn't shagged is.

[Patrick Degan]

Suffice it to say: President Bush had every reason to believe what he said, because that is the information the intelligence community gave him.

Junior could be told the Easter Bunny has a whole fleet of SPECTRE Deathbeam Platforms in orbit being readied to crack the planet open and he'd believe that.

It comes down to Bush either being a dupe or a liar. And until the hard evidence of that alledged vast arsenal of WMDs is demonstrated to exist, assertions that it "must" exist are meaningless.

Oh, and BTW, Appeals to Authority arguments —especially ones framed along the lines of "I'd-tell-you-what-I-know-but-then-I'd-have-to-kill-you" statements— are not impressive in the slightest, and are also meaningless.

Insofar as the question before the bar is concerned, lying about the reasons for a war is not in and of itself impeachable. In point of fact, you would find it next to impossible to make any sort of constitutional case on the matter. The causes listed for impeachment are specific. Nothing Bush has done meets the criteria required for an impeachment action.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Keep in mind people that not only did Bush believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, but the rest of the UN too. What had really split the UN before the war was how to deal with it. Remember that one of the jobs of the weapons inspectors was to find the WMDs that were unaccounted for.

[Vympel]

Bush's reason for going to war:

Saddam didn't provide the evidence of destroying his WMD stash. If he had done it, he could have presented the evidence (hell, a simple official document was all that was needed).

Saddam did not provide this evidence.

Ergo, war.

*points to big list of administration backpedalling*

Iraq was *known* to have unilaterally destroyed WMD without supervision prior to the beginning of inspections. However, there was no way for UN inspectors to confirm the exact amounts destroyed, and so it was listed as unaccounted for.

Whether there is or isn't WMD's in Iraq is utterly immaterial.

Bullshit. The war was sold in a very specific way, regarding a very specific threat, in very specific amounts. You think anyone would've supported the war if Bush said "it was immaterial"?

If there is, Saddam's hidden them well, and it'll take a long time to find them... which means people screaming "Where are the WMD's?!?" are being impatient fuckheads.

Put the entire Bush administration under the list of 'impatient fuckheads' then. They derided and undermined the inspections that went on for four months (entirely unobstructed by Iraq), bitched and moaned constantly and impatiently, and kept on intimating that they knew where the weapons were. Then they arrive in country and ask for more time? Fuck them.

If there isn't, then that just means Saddam successfully manipulated the US into a war. For what purpose? Probably to get those same impatient fuckheads to cause a ruckus.

That sure sounds reasonable

Either way, there's a shitload of noise being made by some very stupid people for a very poor reason.

Everyone should give a shit about this- it means a drop in US credibility for those who don't give a shit about whether they should've gone to war in the first place, not to mention that the deaths of thousands and the destruction of a nation was organized on shoddy intelligence- which is not the basis for preventive war.

[Stuart Mackey]

Keep in mind people that not only did Bush believed that there were WMDs in Iraq, but the rest of the UN too. What had really split the UN before the war was how to deal with it. Remember that one of the jobs of the weapons inspectors was to find the WMDs that were unaccounted for.

Rubbish the whole UN beleived there were WMD's in Iraq. There argument was alway 'where is the proof of these weapons if there is evidence then we will argue about a approprite responce' . The inspectors couldnt find any but the US claimed there were and appealed to its own authority as the excuse to invade.