Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
www.cnn.com ^ | 6/6/03 | John Dean

Posted on 06/07/2003 7:07:40 AM PDT by harpu

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:02:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: desperation; iraqifreedom; johndean; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-127 last
To: Romulus
"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.
101 posted on 06/07/2003 4:29:12 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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.
102 posted on 06/07/2003 4:48:05 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (If somebody has to tell you, it's already too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Only1choice____Freedom
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
103 posted on 06/07/2003 4:51:10 PM PDT by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
>>"...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.
104 posted on 06/07/2003 4:54:41 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (If somebody has to tell you, it's already too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
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.
105 posted on 06/07/2003 4:57:25 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (If somebody has to tell you, it's already too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
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.
106 posted on 06/07/2003 5:15:54 PM PDT by mikenola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: harpu
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)!
107 posted on 06/07/2003 7:43:39 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
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?
108 posted on 06/07/2003 7:52:28 PM PDT by EastCoast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: harpu
If Bush knowingly uttered false statements with the intent to initiate a war, then he should be impeached. But that is ine big IF!
109 posted on 06/07/2003 7:56:17 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative; RightWhale; Physicist; 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.

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

110 posted on 06/07/2003 9:47:42 PM PDT by weikel (Baghdad Bob for DNC chairman, Sharpton for Dem nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: harpu
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.

111 posted on 06/07/2003 10:28:28 PM PDT by Orion78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpu; All
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.
112 posted on 06/07/2003 10:38:36 PM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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

113 posted on 06/08/2003 7:20:31 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer looking for next gig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; GraniteStateConservative
K that settles it for me, from( what has appeared to me) to be the smartest technical mind on FR.
114 posted on 06/08/2003 7:54:08 AM PDT by weikel (Baghdad Bob for DNC chairman, Sharpton for Dem nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: weikel
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)

115 posted on 06/08/2003 7:58:59 AM PDT by SauronOfMordor (Java/C++/Unix/Web Developer looking for next gig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Don't forget "Looting the Baghdad Museum Gate", "quagmire gate" and "GW rushing to war gate".
116 posted on 06/08/2003 8:02:19 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Evil Old White Devil Californian Grampa for big Al Sharpton and Nader in primaries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
Job market sucks for now, it will recover but probably not for another year at least.
117 posted on 06/08/2003 8:04:25 AM PDT by weikel (Baghdad Bob for DNC chairman, Sharpton for Dem nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Evil VRWC White Devils for big Al are coast to coast in America!
118 posted on 06/08/2003 8:05:59 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Evil Old White Devil Californian Grampa for big Al Sharpton and Nader in primaries!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: EastCoast
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?
119 posted on 06/09/2003 5:22:10 AM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: harpu
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...

120 posted on 06/09/2003 6:09:08 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I was wondering how long it would take before someone asked this question.. Should be amusing to see whether the Democrats seriously decide to take this detour to nowhere..

I save all threads of interest to me to hard drive and thence to CD.

It is significant that I am filing this one under "Politics", not under "Government" or "Law".

121 posted on 06/09/2003 6:12:37 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpu
The WHOLE WORLD believed that SH had WMD. It is only the marxists in this country that would charge GW with LYING about what the ENTIRE WORLD and UN knew to be true. There are PICTURES of IRAQI'S and IRANIANS who were KILLED by IRAQ'S WMD. This question is as ludicrous as Hillary's SHOCK and DISMAY at the Slick One's infidelity.
122 posted on 06/09/2003 6:18:01 AM PDT by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bisesi
I do not think the who world believed that SH was an imminent and growing threat to the US or even its neighbors.

SH had decided pretty much to open Iraq up to the inspectors.

The French, Russians kept saying that the was no solid evidence that Iraq had continued WMD programs, if you recall some of their statements before the war.

It is not exactly right to say that Bush was lying. He BELIEVED what he said. He did however misrepresent a mere BELIEF, a mere GUESS, really, as something more than that -- as CERTAINTY or KNOWLEDGE.

Is that a LIE? I'm not sure. But it's less than fully honest. It's OBVIOUS that they didn't KNOW with CERTAINTY that SH had WMD. So certainly, they didn't KNOW that SH was a "grave and gathering" danger to the US, as Bush used to put it. That part probably was utterly dishonest, in a sense, a public pretext for a war Bush wanted for other, not necessarily illegitimate reasons.

Never trust any politician ever, not even one that's on your side. Don't believe that they really respect you or represent you. They have their own agendas always. You are just there to be stage-managed into following along with the program.

123 posted on 06/09/2003 6:26:19 AM PDT by leftiesareloonie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
(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.

Given that GWB used the same reason to attack Hussein as WJC used, I ask myself whether Dean's motivations could be political?

124 posted on 06/09/2003 6:30:10 AM PDT by Smedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: harpu
Sure.....so Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, world intelligence, Blair, the UN, McCain, Lieberman, hundreds of others ALL LIED, for 14 months, in order to go to war?

Then....they knew we would go in and find nothing?

And.....therefore what? Their goal was? To have their so-called lies proved?

Dramatic and illogical.

125 posted on 06/09/2003 6:43:40 AM PDT by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mr.pink
It's interesting about Kristol; is he falling from disfavor at the WH? (sarcasm off) Kristol is someone I automatically tune off and tune out. I just don't care for the guy and his "inner circle" attitude. More than likely now, I will pay attention.
126 posted on 06/09/2003 10:46:44 PM PDT by EastCoast (snotty scottie, Cry Me a River...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: EastCoast
I saw Kristol paired with Gergen on with Greta last night. His performance was as amazing as it was desperate. He was really hanging the intel community out to dry in an obscenely broad brush manner. Gergen basically was floored and pretty much called him a sneakey turd...using very diplomatic language of course. I'd have paid $50 to have heard what Gergen was thinking but not saying.

I don't know how anyone in any position of power would give the Kristol the time of day. His aura of duplicity is at downright radioactive levels.
127 posted on 06/10/2003 6:37:27 AM PDT by mr.pink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-127 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson