Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? (B-Alert)

CNN.com ^ | Friday, June 6, 2003 | John W. Dean

[DannyTN]

Is accusing the president of lying without proof TREASON?

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

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

Response: This accusation against Bush appears to be gathering steam.

[SunStar]

what did 1441 say? I Must have forgotten. I thought it said that Iraq had to give unfettered access to inspections to find weapons of mass destruction. Am I wrong?

Yes, I think you did forget. Don't you remember the "serious consequences will apply" clause if Saddam didn't comply?

[Eric Esot]

because the 'RATS live by "repeat a lie often enough and people will think its true." That's what their trying to do. They're going to keep saying this over and over trying to make people doubt President Bush.

Also called "propoganda"

The DNC has learned well the technique's of Hitler's SS - divide American's into many factions and pit them against each other. And this latest DNC hysteria of WMD is the last ditch effort of a dying regime to shape public opinion back to their intended socialist means.

To say Bush is some evil mastermind that was able to fool the pentagon, powell, the American people - the entire world for that matter – is absolutely pathetic and will be totally ineffective, no matter how many journalists the DNC owns.

[SunStar]

Don't you remember the "serious consequences will apply" clause if Saddam didn't comply?

I believe the terms used in the 15-or-so U.N. Resolutions were "unfettered access", "proof", "evidence", "complete disarmament", etc.

Are you that stupid or are you just patronizing me?

[Aliska]

If there was lying, it would have to be proved to be deliberate. I seem to remember another war in the Balkans that was not presented honestly to the American people.