If as I stated in my first response in this thread it was a lie and if that lie was related to protecting national security then my friend it is considered acceptable behavior. My point is that alternative issues do exist and when taking into consideration the whole picture this does seem to fall under the auspices of a matter
of National security.

My advise to you sir is to delve more carefully into the situation and put aside your partiality while you address the big picture.

210,000 people missing in Iraq (and presumed dead) over the last 10 years, had nothing to do with the US and everything to do with the UN.

I do not blindly follow the lies.

Maskedavatar you seem like a very observent person to be able to pick up the difference in wording. Tell me any more things you have picked up.

Thanks pizzaphile.

I have promised not to offer any new thoughts on this thread.

"WMDs" vs "Weapons programs" was like chalk and cheese. It is unfortunate that the majority of Americans may not observe or care about the difference because it is their dumbed-down President talking in duosyllabic words that seem to make sense and mean roughly the same thing.

It is the responsibility of the people who notice these lies to convey them to as many people as possible.

He will not be forgiven.

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?


No. Why? Because President Bush cannot lie about what his Security Advisors advise. All he can do is regurgitate what he's told from his intelligence officers. It's really that simple.

At the risk of reneging on my promise to say nothing new, I will cover trodden old ground. The issue about security advice will be that there were in fact valid security reports that showed Hussein posed no threat to the USA or any other sovereign nation. These were chosen as the ones to ignore.

The Bush administration selected, fabricated and cooked from all security advice available, a picture of screaming urgency to disarm Hussein of his thousands of existing WMDs - a deception, a statement known to be untrue - in order to engage in an internationally illegal war. Bush was a knowing party in this and Powell who delivered the false information to the media machine will be the first scapegoat.

Leveller you said earlier that we had no proof that Bush has lied and that is what we have to have, but is that not what he's searching for? Proof. He's trying to prove that his intitial excuse for this unjust war was the WMDs and that all the lives lost were for a just cause. He still hasn't proved it to me, and the only reason we haven't proved he's lied is because he hasn't been under oath yet.
Mahalo

Originally posted by FLNELKO
Leveller you said earlier that we had no proof that Bush has lied and that is what we have to have, but is that not what he's searching for? Proof. He's trying to prove that his intitial excuse for this unjust war was the WMDs and that all the lives lost were for a just cause. He still hasn't proved it to me, and the only reason we haven't proved he's lied is because he hasn't been under oath yet.
Mahalo

Proof is everything.
The media was the entity that played up WoMD as the number one reason for invading. The Administration just rode with it.


Look at it this way though: If WoMD were the main reason for going into Iraq, why was it called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and not something more obvious like "Operation World Safety" or something similar?

Perhaps "Operation Disarm Iraq" would have also been a good phrase if that had been the actuall function of the mission.

I would have expected them to use a statistical procedure (i.e. factor analysis) to estimate the probability of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, BEFORE going in and invading. It turns out that they didn't have direct proof, and they knowingly lied.

I wonder what is going to happen with this issue, it doesn't seem to be going away.

oh and the whole thing about clinton impeachment vs. bush impeachment. I agree that lying is lying. If you are the president, you should be a model citizen, not a liar. To let presidents get away with lying is encouraging future presidents to continue lying. If you don't punish the lying behavior, you increase the likelihood of it happening again in the future.

Leveller said:

"The media was the entity that played up WoMD as the number one reason for invading. The Administration just rode with it."

You actually think that the media is a seperate entity or independant of the "Administration"?



ONE

Originally posted by Tamahu
Leveller said:

"The media was the entity that played up WoMD as the number one reason for invading. The Administration just rode with it."

You actually think that the media is a seperate entity or independant of the "Administration"?




ONE

Yes. It is a totally separate entity driven by one force and one force alone - MONEY.

The truth doesn't matter to the media as long as they get the cash in their pockets.
Media has bought down governements many times. It also spends a lot fo time opposinmg governments if it helps to sell more airtime or newspapers.

There is no loyalty to anything other than the dollar sign.

I would agree with you TE if it were not for Watergate the press has its own agenda and if is sells newpapers they will sell out anyone.

I agree entirely.

In the past two months feel-good patriotic heroic stories and anything that puts the USA in the position of #1, would have sold millions more papers than the truth about the US economy and the stench of corruption in the Bush administration.

Another response from the "we" generation.

Now we're talking about the name for the war? Maybe they named it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" so that Bush had another crutch to lean on. So he didn't have to come out and say we're killing people and stealing their oil...meanwhile the economy under my regime even WITH more oil is going to suck!...I am honestly interested on the final count of people who died...counting our troops. Anyone have the final count? I'm just wondering! Thanks.

That's the problem with this thread its been a discussion into maybes, while what is for certain
has been regarded as secondary.

This being just my opinion

Not certain as to the numbers with respect to your question.

Leveller said:

"Yes. It is a totally separate entity driven by one force and one force alone - MONEY."

Who do you think has control of the MONEY?

Can we say Federal Reserve, World Bank, I.M.F. and the Rothschilds?


ONE




[Edited on 17-6-2003 by Tamahu]

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, of course it is! Our own very government. The government that is asking us to bask ourselves in the red, white, and blue lied to us! If we can't trust our government in matters like this when can we trust them. The American People blindly ok'd Bush to invade Iraq and murder hundreds, even our own soldiers!

Bush needs to get kicked out of office. We need a regime change here in USA.

Do you just hate America man?