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

www.cnn.com ^ | 6/6/03 | John Dean

[harpu]

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.

[FairOpinion]

"The President's obligation is either to disclose what he knows or else hold back what must be concealed for reasons of national security. He has no business playing intel peek-a-boo, selectively revealing and withholding information according to his political convenience. "
---

Obviously the reason he is not revealing the information, because it may compromise our current efforts of looking for WMD, "sources and methods" which may help our enemies, and compromise intel sources.

Bush may be forced to reveal some of this, not that he wants to, which was already shown to Congress in classified meetings, to refute the Democrats accusations.

Bush is not playing games, the Democrats are and they are playing with the security of the US, for their own political gains.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

We can tell those we know ans send messages all day. Fox broadcasts the truth and the Internet has all the data anybody who wants to know can find. However, the vast majority of the public only sees what the network puts in their face ans so far it has been negative and still Bush holds commanding respect.

Why is that? Because he has EARNED their respect.

You know the mass media will not report any positive news from the right if they can help it. The only way it will be brought out in the open is if they don't have a choice. Soon, that will be the case. The ball is in Bush's hands. If he wants to show his cards, he will have to have a good hand and the Dem's are bluffing and they are betting heavily on it. If Bush is just stringing them along, he will wait until the best time to reveal what he is holding.

Thank you sending me the links. If we can get the people sitting on the fence to hop down on our side, they will see more than what is on the surface. The truth can set them free. (or scare the hell out of them)

In my life I have found that very little is what it seems on the surface.

[FairOpinion]

I generally agree with you. But sometime conservative columnists can and do write articles which appear in the mainstream media and points out the truth.

Here is a good one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925015/posts

[Only1choice____Freedom]

>>"...He has no business playing intel peek-a-boo, selectively revealing and withholding information according to his political convenience..."

You are absolutely right. However, up to this point there has been a national security reason not to reveal. That threat has been mostly elimanated. However, some things we know (as in Syria's current role) still needs to be guarded until the negeoations are either complete or stalmated. That time is coming soon. He can't afford to wait a whole lot more. I suspect there are things going on we won't know about until long after his presidency is over that are a bigger reason for holding out.

Patience. In the mean time they will beat him up. When he is ready, enough will be seen to sway the public and then some.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Thanks.

Like I tell my sons. Patience, Patience. It's gonna hurt when they tell lies, but when the truth comes out and you are standing on it, there is no better place to be.

[mikenola]

A good counter to the left on this one is something Rush touched on a while back.

The logical conundrum is this: If Saddam had no WMD, then why did he work so hard to thwart the inspectors? No rational person could argue that Saddam was actually cooperating.

All the US was asking for was simple *proof* that the WMD declared in the 1991 and 2000 accountings was destroyed. All Saddam would have to have done, was to hire some French video production company to doctor up some video of chemical drums being blown up, and phony up some documents, and that would have been it. Sanctions could have been lifted, Saddam would remain dictator, and go one living like Tony Montana.

Now, what would prompt Saddam, by all accounts a cool methodical planner, to give up all that over some technical violation of UN resolutions? The only rational answer is WMD.

WMD was key to Saddam's grander ambitions. He wasn't content to just be junta of Iraq, no matter how many palaces he built. From the moment he joined the Ba'ath party in the 60's, Saddam has seen himself as using Pan-Arabism as his key to a historical legacy.

Saddam knew that Arabs don't have the martial mentality and discipline to be any sort of significant convential force. The humiliating defeat in GW1 only underscored that thinking. Heavy use of chemical weapons was the only way he was able to (barely) repel the Iranians from capturing southern Iraq.

WMD was ideal for his purposes. It's difficult to disguise manufacturing or importing a fighter jet or artillery piece. But the components of chembio and their production components could be easily hidden within notorious "duel-use" items.

Bush isn't required to prove Iraqi WMD in a court of law. Militaries have always dealt in probabilities and risk assesment, not legally provable facts. Clinton's mistake was seeing terrorism as a law enforcement issue, not a military one, and it brought us 9/11.

Thank goodness, we have a group of leaders that can act clearly and decisively.

[leprechaun9]

If committing perjury under oath is not grounds for impeachment and REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, then I don't understand why freeing the children from prison, ending the rape and torture of women has no significance to the Democraps and RINOs (John Dean)!

[EastCoast]

Let me see, the laughable Blitz with his UN Inspectors were "searching" for 12 years in ways that helped Saddam; and now they want back into Iraq to search again. And how much time has Dean given W to find the WMDs before talking of impeachment?! What is going on here, Johnny?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

If Bush knowingly uttered false statements with the intent to initiate a war, then he should be impeached. But that is ine big IF!

[weikel]

They were making WMD though, there is no other reason for them to have a facility with material radioactive enough to cause widespread radiation sickness in the surrounding area.

Pinging some of our resident scientistians for confirmation( im just an EE student still).

[Orion78]

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.

Intersting how they leave out that Bill Clinton stretched, twisted and distorted facts and got away with it.

[new cruelty]

Dean must think that Bush also lied about the threat Bin Laden and Saddam presented to the world. Neither have been located, so they must have never existed.

[SauronOfMordor]

They were making WMD though, there is no other reason for them to have a facility with material radioactive enough to cause widespread radiation sickness in the surrounding area.

I don't see the radiation levels we found as being explainable by anthing other than playing at WMD development

[weikel]

K that settles it for me, from( what has appeared to me) to be the smartest technical mind on FR.

[SauronOfMordor]

K that settles it for me, from( what has appeared to me) to be the smartest technical mind on FR.

Thanks! Now if I can only translate this technical mind into getting my next software job (If you know anybody within a hundred miles of Philadelphia, please let me know)

[Grampa Dave]

Don't forget "Looting the Baghdad Museum Gate", "quagmire gate" and "GW rushing to war gate".

[weikel]

Job market sucks for now, it will recover but probably not for another year at least.

[Grampa Dave]

Evil VRWC White Devils for big Al are coast to coast in America!

[mr.pink]

And how much time has Dean given W to find the WMDs before talking of impeachment?! What is going on here, Johnny?

Who cares about Dean when you've got one of the war's loudest PR architects/proponents (Kristol) stating he's skeptical that any WMDs will be found?

I agree 100%...what is going on here, Johnny?

[Publius6961]

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

Ask a stupid question, then build a 3000-word article around it.
Must be a lawyer thing.

Depends on what the definition of "is" is, I guess...