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.

[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..

[You Dirty Rats]

JOHN DEAN???????????

BUBBA has more credibility than this piece of garbage.

[KC Burke]

Like the less apocolyptic Knight-Rider article that was the front page lead in the Kansas City Star this morning, Dean is basing his indictment upon a very limited couple of "sources" who are now speaking out saying that the literal knowledge of this or that weapons system was not in thier reports at the time.

What Dean here, or Knight Rider fail to highlight is that the Administration gets a whole slew of reports from various sources and agencies that have to be balanced and considered with a thoughtful civilian responsiblity as the sworn defender of the nation.

Saddam in violation of his cease-fire agreements and UN resolutions allowed to remain active with a mixed bag of reports could have only made Bush culpable in later damage that Saddam inflicted -- end of story.

[Southack]

"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."

Wow! Dean needs to put down his crack pipe and figure out that the Guardian has already issued a full RETRACTION of their Wolfowitz misquote. It must hurt to be caught using that bogus quote. Then again, old man Dean seems to have weathered his misdeeds during Watergate, somehow.

Bush's quoted statements are acurate, in any event. Iraq *did* produce large, well-documented quantities of nerve, chemical, and biological agents (though most of that documentation comes from Iraq's surrender declarations back in 1991). It is from those declarations that we have UN inspectors in the first place.

What Dean wants to do is to PRETEND that Bush was talking about NEW production as factually as he was talking about the old, well-documented production in Iraq of such weapons. That's purely disingenuous on his part.

Instead of casting stones, Dean needs to be explaining how his Deep Throat buddy Fred Fielding has gotten away with violating Presidential Attorney-Client privilege for so long.

Dean has plenty of explaining to do, and this poor article is only the start of it.

Hey Dean, how about those mobile labs that we found in Iraq?! You know, the ones that you RIDICULED when Powell was only able to show *drawings* of them during his presentation to the UN...

[TrueBeliever9]

Is "lying" impeachable now? This must be a new phrase in government. In that case 99% of all sinators and congrossmen/women will have to be impeached!

[tomakaze]

In that case 99% of all sinators and congrossmen/women will have to be impeached!
 
wouldnt hurt my feelings a bit.

[fml]

"Democrats seriously decide to take this detour to nowhere.."
______________

LOL...Democrats are a detour to nowhere.

[AntiGuv]

Personally, I think that what Dean is attempting to insinuate would be impeachable, but one requires a heck of a lot more than parsing the President's phrasing. They would have to find direct evidence of a plot to deceive the American people; a conscious, stated decision to manufacture evidence in the cause of war. I cannot imagine they would find such a thing because I strongly doubt that's what happened, whatever the case may be.

[Non-Sequitur]

If lying was an impeachable offense then we could toss every member of congress out.

[steve50]

Is "lying" impeachable now? This must be a new phrase in government. In that case 99% of all sinators and congrossmen/women will have to be impeached!

That percentage would be a very good start, that's about the incumbent return rate.

[mr.pink]

I don't think Bush intentionally lied, I don't see that in his character. I believe he was provided with "cooked" intel by people and countries he trusted.

I think we will find WMDs, but I don't think they will be anywhere near the level/abundance used to rally the nation for the war.

[Osage Orange]

Very nice informative post.....

Thanks..&

FRegards,

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yeah, JR, going after impeachment was such an electoral winner for the GOP. I'm surprised the Dems haven't tried it more often. [/sarcasm]

: )

[TopQuark]

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked.

G-d help this nation: people with such deep thinking abilities serve as counsels to the president.

P.S. Isn't it interesting that the footnote failed to mention which president this mand served? Did we have that many that it is hard to track? Or is it because they try to disguise the partisanship of the author, something that is very clear from the article.

[WorkingClassFilth]

The presence of WMD's, at this time, is totally irrelevant except to Leftist dolts looking to find traction on some issue. The facts are, according to the Clinton White House and the UN, that Saddam, unquestionably, had chemical weapons. The Kurdish dead are also evidence that he had them and was willing to use them.

We went to war with Iraq for many reasons, but the one in play has been the Left's obcession with WMD's because they were the ones looking for higher levels of justification from Bush that they had from anyone else. All of the troubled voices in government and the media harping on this are liars since they never had any sort of definitive standards before this time.

The war in Iraq was a battle. The real war is ongoing and is against terrorism. We've known this much since the Bush repsonse to terrorism in the week following 911. I believe, and hope, that America will act unilaterally, if need be, to continue the destruction and punishment of regimes across the globe that harbor, train, finance and in any way aid the mayhem of international terror. Saddam was involved in all of these activities. The facts are there.

So, Mr. Dean, if you are having conscience problems and are looking for a better government you can go and "Kiss it." At least, that's what 'people of conscience' did throught the 90's when these problems developed.

What a wanker.

[cardinal4]

"Meanwhile in other news, yet another mass grave has been found south of Baghdad......."

[jraven]

I think Sadaam had to go. And I'm glad we got him out.
BUT:
If GWB & Co did not tell the truth about WMD then they lied blatantly -- just as the Clintons lied (and lie) blatantly.
We can't be going after the Clintons for being liars then try to find all kinds of reasons and justifications if GWB...let's say it flatly...liked to the Congress, American people, and Blair to justify going in.
Sorry. And if we try to pretend it did not matter then whatever the Democrats do in the future (or have done in the past) is OK...because it would indicate there is no moral or ethical differences between the two parties.
The SAME STANDARDS must be applied to ALL.
Again, I was a war supporter and am glad Sadaam is gone.
But I don't like being lied to by my government on an issue like this -- and am hoping that is NOT what happened.

[AntiGuv]

John Dean was Richard Nixon's chief counsel..

[Consort]

I think the Constitution says that an impeachable offense is whatever enough members of the House determine it to be and it does not have involve a violation of the law.