posted on Jan, 24 2004 @ 05:17 PM
Impeached? Based on what?
That "he", exclusively, George W. Bush, said that Iraq had WMD?
I find it interesting that many here keep yelling and proclaiming that Bush, exclusively, should be impeached.
With the myrids of intellignece papers within the US and the intelligince papers outside the US, you know...other foreign allied nations have
their own sources stating that Saddam had WMD, how do you propose to legally affirm that Bush, exclusively, is to be impeached?
Here's a concrete FACT:
Saddam, inargueablely, had WMD, at one time. The 'time' is of issue, as Powell has mentioned, and as others in political circles have
This inargueable evidence is concluded by UNSCOM, by Iraq's past record in regards to WMD, in Iraq having used them, in Iraq's own written and
verbal submission to said fact.
Listing of those still "unaccounted for" WMD are found in many official forms from 1998 to before the second Iraq War. Did Saddam ever come clean
and fully explain them and have them removed from the "unaccounted for" documents? No. The UN, with the instituting of Resolution 1441, gave Saddam
one more chance to explain, in documented, proven form, those lists of "unaccounted for" WMD. Did he? No.
Please bear in serious mind, that it was Saddam's responsibility to clarify and provide the documentation on where and how those WMD were
destroyed or where they were so that they could be destroyed. Again, did he? No.
Could the US have opted for further "containment" policies? Sure, but with the events of 9/11.....the rules changed. The significance of the tragic
event opted for the fulfillment and requirements of Resolution 1441. None compliance resulted in "game over" for Mr. Saddam. Personally, it was
inevitable that this was going to happen.
Again, prior existence of Iraq/Saddam having WMD was not in dispute.....the world's documented record(s) on this proves in accordance with what this
All some to many who are against this are doing is a form of syllogism. To further this syllogism, the mode of thinking is:
Saddam/Iraq indeed had WMD.
No large quantities of WMD have been found, hence
Saddam/Iraq didn't have WMD, and
Because Saddam/Iraq doesn't have WMD, George Bush lied for saying that they did, and
Because he said this and lied, he should be impeached.
In light of this, in a syllogism, the conclusion can never make the premise invalid.
In such case....
Saddam/Iraq destroyed those "unaccounted for" WMD, or
Saddam/Iraq, within the 12+ years period, hid them so well, that they have yet to be uncovered or found, or
Saddam/Iraq, within the 12+ years period, had those WMD moved to another nation(s) or another entity(s).
Because WMD have not been found doesn't conclusively prove that anyone has lied. Nor does it imply and justify that Saddam/Iraq complied with
the requirements of UN's Resolution 1441 (which passed unanimously and that included Germany and France).
If your going to continue to proclaim and ask 'why' Bush has not been impeached, might better do some more critical thinking on this, because "a
lie(s)" has yet to be determined through legal means, definition, and evidences. Might want to read what he actually said and implied,
along with those many other nations and what they had documented on Saddam/Iraq WMD issue(s).
[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Seekerof]