Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

all proponents of the Patriot Act I and II should be hanged from an airplane then dropped into a volcano!!!

either that or be thrown into an itch chamber. room full of mosquitoes, and put mitts on their hands, or cut their hands off, it's all good.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
It is Bu#!

LMAO, thats what I was hopeing you'd say PC

priceless!!!!

Bush : Do not, Iran, misunderestimate the lesvel of Bu# i am capable of creating, and we, haaaaha, WE have the burritos!!!!

ok what does that get then cheney becomes prez he's just as much as a hardliner as bush

Cheny has a heart condition and as a result another question is who would he pick as Vice-president?

I think its naive to conclude that any leader of a country is not obligated to lie to protect the interests of the country in question, even to his own people.

As far as Bill Clinton it is interesting to note that the desk in the oval office has a door. Where in most desks a panel covers the area, where the legs are placed when one is sitting (if its function is not apparent think dirty thoughts).

Ask the President of the United States any one of a thousand questions related to national security and he will lie about it, to be honest the fact he is lying is officially the proper response.

[Edited on 9-6-2003 by Toltec]

The US invaded Iraq and ousted its leadership (at least for while) on the basis that that country was a clear and present danger to the US because of WMDs.

This was a lie. The justifications presented for the lie in previous posts were.

* all politicians lie
* it's OK to lie sometimes in the interests of national security
* the President hasn't lied under oath.

This is all sadly denial and clutching at straws.

The only reason the President lied, and it's not justifiable, is because he is part of a corrupt administration now engaged in war profiteering. He will be undone, and charged with war crimes, apart from being impeached.

That is silly as well as childish what is the basis for saying that in this case the US lied?

Simply stated what I said was that when in the case national security is an issue our leadership will lie to avoid giving away secrets pertaining to the protection of national security.

That WMD are found or are not found is not justification to say the current administration lied given what people are capable of, that conclusion is naive.

Now if you want to prove that is true you would have to prove the US had no intention of continuing the war on terror.

Feel free

Toltec

Your logic may be too contorted or complex for me to follow but I stand by what I said. Lies are lies, whether they are in support of other lies or for the sake of creating new deception.

Lying about war is heinous.

Did Bush and his cronies say that they were going to war because of the danger of WMDs? Yes.
Are there WMDs? No (not planted yet).

Does that constitute a lie? Yes, by my reasoning.

I do not mean to say that the war and the seneless death was engaged in purely for war profiteering. I do mean to say that the administration is corrupt, therefore it lies; and one of the consequences that is happening now, which was also a known benefit, is the war profiteering.

Lying on the basis of some connection with national security is still lying. To bring it up here as justification is all still post-hoc rationalisation.

To say that the Bush clan has lied is pure speculation.

Doesn't anyone remember Saddam gassing Kurds and Shias, not to mention the Iranian population???

Didn't that happen???

Yeah I think it did.

Anyway, my point is this.

Saddam has had these weapons at one time in the past.

That is a pure warrented fact.

Now, to say that Saddam has them currently is pure speculation on our part. Now the government has said that the Regime has these weapons. Their assesments of this are not speculation due to the fact that they actually have the means to know when we citizens don't. Its not like we can just scope out Iraqi military bases and other facilites as they, our government can.

Therefore it is reasonable to believe that these weapons do in fact exist. To say that they don't is wrong because we have no means of knowing so. Only our government does. Therefore we should trust them when they tell us that is so.

Now, what about the threat.

Can we assess that situation too???

No we can't.

We don't have the means.

Our government does.

Therefore we should take their word for it.

Now many people would refute that by saying that if it was such a threat then why is it that we were never threatened. That would be the concerns of the skeptics.

Well think about this.

If our government knew these weapons were capable of threatening us then it is likely that our government would take the proper action to stop this threat right???

Well that is what I suppose they did.

I trust that our government doesn't want to see harm done onto its own people. Therefore if the threat was sincere than wouldn't it be reasonable to say that they took care of that threat???

How can we even pose that is not the case.

Remember we don't have the means to do so.



You See?????

The Bush administration stooped so low as to use fabricated evidence to show that it knew where the WMDs were. In fact some of the evidence was so old as to be useless, Colin Powell baulked at the idea of presenting it in justification, but yes it was presented and found to be false. The "mobile chemical weapons labs" have been shown to be hydrogen-producing.

There is no point trying to say this administration did not knowingly lie about WMDs.

This is the trail of lies that has come unstuck...
(reposting this)

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer 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 January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell 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 Bush February 8, 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 March 8, 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 Bush 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 March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. 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 March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , 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 March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
Donald Rumsfeld 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 April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Ari Fleischer 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 Bush 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 April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld 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 May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

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 May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had 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 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 May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld 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 May 28, 2003

Now why would lying about the reason for killing a *lot* of people be an impeachable offense?

Hussein had them, used them, and has killed more Muslims than any country in the past 50+ years if not longer.

8 year war with Iran-gas was used
Kurdish question-gas was used
Shiited uprising-genocide and destruction of the wetlands they called home-(that is for the environmentalist out there)

the timing of this argument is interesting in that a conservative and Republican is in office and now the left is up in arms about the war, WMD, etc...

Prior administrations used the military as meals on wheels, cops, etc... and not a whisper from that side of the aisle. Oh ya, 1998, Clinton administration along with members of the democratic party in both the senate and house called for a regime change in Iraq, because of WMD and the support of terrorism worldwide.

Just some random thoughts from the other side-RAISE or FOLD

[Edited on 9-6-2003 by pokerbob]

Someone who wants to see Bush impeached claims that he can't see the logic in the argument that we should wait.


I've still yet to see a sinlge scrap of proof that Bush told lies.
Sure, there are people here who are throwing in bits of speculation, but in no way does that prove a thing.
Proof is everything.
Without proof you have no case whatsoever.

Let's actually see whether he did lie, before baying like wolves for impeachment, shall we?

Leveller

In my opinion, Bush and Blair knowingly promoted poor, false and even fabricated intelligence to justify what Wolfowitz has now labelled as a "bureacratically convenient" argument for war. Howard in Australia followed as a puppet to secure favourable trade terms. It is a heinous act, and without doubt will be subject to judicial review.

However, it may never surface that Bush is caught out on this. Too much water under the bridge, too much media manipulation, and too much time in the weeks hence to plant some nasty WMDs.

Bush (the family) has already committed dozens of impeachable acts, many by the hand of Dubya.

* Election rigging
* Enron
* 9/11 security failure as Commander In Chief, and subsequent cover-up

Argue the toss on them. The list will grow and grow. This is the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States, and yet the people will have the opportunity to democratically re-elect them next year. That is the power of freedom and democracy.

Originally posted by William
writ.news.findlaw.com...

Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Jun. 06, 2003

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American 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.

WIlliam, are you that focused on WMD? I hope this is a public forum? LOL!!!!

The war was about (in what order do you place)regime change for US benefit, liberate the world , continuity, econonmic power, OIL!!!!!! right............

I suppose The dead Kurds were faked also.

Must we all sing along to "Imagine" and hope things work out allright?

No.
I think not. IMHO.

Bush's only problem for re-elect is the economy as I see this. The 'war' was just.....thank you!

I see the lack of support for any opposition significant.

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by Tyriffic]

it's stuff like this, the lies that go uncalled that piss me off. our people can't even see through what they're told. americans everywhere are fed media lies and take it as fact. if something is to be done it should be this or something like it.

an independant media organisation needs to be created. an organisation that supplies the real truth, with real proof. and when bush goes into his 'mode' we should call out any BS he says. i think then and only then, will the people wake up to the BS floatin around and they belive.

Did Bush and his cronies say that they were going to war because of the danger of WMDs? Yes.
Are there WMDs? No (not planted yet).

Does that constitute a lie? Yes, by my reasoning.

Here is another scenario Saddam had WMD but hid them
as a result they have not been found.

Simple, concise and realistic nothing complicated about that.

MaskedAvatar my responses are not contorted perhaps the word you were looking for is convoluted.

Given that Saddam Hussein has not been a subject of serious investigation by the UN for Human rights violations since the end of GW1 (as in UN inspectors placed in the country for that specific purpose), you should consider that responding to this problem in the way you are, is oversimplifying the matter.

As long as bush didnt lie under oath we cant do a thing about it.

Contort = to twist, bend or draw out of shape
Convolute = to coil up, form into a twisted shape
Take your pick.

1. When the UN inspectors were booted out, the US gave as its reason for invading Iraq the clear and present danger of WMDs. Unequivocally. Bush promised and Powell and others "delivered" evidence of the locations of both WMDs and manufacturing facilities. The evidence was fabricated. It was a series of LIES.

2. Bush sycophants will gladly absorb the watering down of those lies over the next few days and the convenient distraction of other issues. Recall Wolfowitz's initial "surprise" statement that WMDs were selected as an issue of bureaucratic convenience. Recall Bush talking now not of clear and present danger of WMDs, but that Iraq "had" a weapons "program" and there is no doubt that evidence will be found of a wepons "program". What a complete jerk his speechwriter is and what fools he takes the American public for.

You should enjoy swallowing the contorted, convoluted lies that this administration arranges for the media to serve you up. Also, you should continue to provide rationalisations about human rights abuses and partial genocide pepetrated by Hussein, to divert focus away from the stench of corruption and lies.

Sadly, the fact remains that this administration orchestrated another heinous and monumental lie to go to war. Period.

Enjoy defending his lies, in service of your corrupt President.

Main Entry: con�vo�lut�ed
Pronunciation: -"l�-t&d

Function: adjective
Date: 1766
1 : having convolutions
2 : INVOLVED, INTRICATE

Pronunciation Key

� 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Interesting you must feel very safe thinking the
way you do while you ended your response by saying "period" how exactly does that relate to
what others think?

Go to a mirror and look at yourself and say this, "I protested against a war which stopped mass murder."

Then say this, "the weapons could be hidden and the powers that be do not want to start a mass panic over the issue."

And finally, "Saddam Hussein got away with killing all those people right under the noses of the UN its very possible that he had a lot more help that I have ever considered."

There now don't you feel better?

What is sad sir is there are some who are so prepared to accept everything they are told just because the response is simple (for the record you seem to be eating what has been served to you quite contentedly).

The situation from my perspective demands a more complex assessment one which begins with an analysis of all the information. From the perspective of this reader your conclusions seem more based upon you bias and not any real investigation.

But by all means sir keep those blue colored glasses on and continue to hum Lucy in the sky with Diamonds when in heavy traffic.

But keep this in mind a good definition for stereotypes is blinders

Rationalize that to your hearts content


What are your thoughts?

A lie is a lie. Whether or not this particular lie is an impeachable offense is the topic of this thread. I believe that it is. There are constitutional grounds for this. Lots of amateur and professional analysts have researched them much better than I.

My agenda is that the current US government is distasteful, corrupt, rotten to the core. The WMD lies are the basest example of that so far, maybe. History will bear that out.

My agenda is not to reflect on Hussein or daily massacres by despots and militia in many corners of the globe. But yes, I can look in the mirror as I think of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and call Bush a liar deserving of impeachment.

My thoughts on this thread are complete, I have nothing else to offer.

Except actually I never liked the Beatles much. '___' and coc aine are Bush territory not mine.