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.

[Publius6961]

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..

I save all threads of interest to me to hard drive and thence to CD.

It is significant that I am filing this one under "Politics", not under "Government" or "Law".

[PISANO]

The WHOLE WORLD believed that SH had WMD. It is only the marxists in this country that would charge GW with LYING about what the ENTIRE WORLD and UN knew to be true. There are PICTURES of IRAQI'S and IRANIANS who were KILLED by IRAQ'S WMD. This question is as ludicrous as Hillary's SHOCK and DISMAY at the Slick One's infidelity.

[leftiesareloonie]

I do not think the who world believed that SH was an imminent and growing threat to the US or even its neighbors.

SH had decided pretty much to open Iraq up to the inspectors.

The French, Russians kept saying that the was no solid evidence that Iraq had continued WMD programs, if you recall some of their statements before the war.

It is not exactly right to say that Bush was lying. He BELIEVED what he said. He did however misrepresent a mere BELIEF, a mere GUESS, really, as something more than that -- as CERTAINTY or KNOWLEDGE.

Is that a LIE? I'm not sure. But it's less than fully honest. It's OBVIOUS that they didn't KNOW with CERTAINTY that SH had WMD. So certainly, they didn't KNOW that SH was a "grave and gathering" danger to the US, as Bush used to put it. That part probably was utterly dishonest, in a sense, a public pretext for a war Bush wanted for other, not necessarily illegitimate reasons.

Never trust any politician ever, not even one that's on your side. Don't believe that they really respect you or represent you. They have their own agendas always. You are just there to be stage-managed into following along with the program.

[Smedley]

(FindLaw) --President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. 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.

Given that GWB used the same reason to attack Hussein as WJC used, I ask myself whether Dean's motivations could be political?

[roses of sharon]

Sure.....so Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, world intelligence, Blair, the UN, McCain, Lieberman, hundreds of others ALL LIED, for 14 months, in order to go to war?

Then....they knew we would go in and find nothing?

And.....therefore what? Their goal was? To have their so-called lies proved?

Dramatic and illogical.

[EastCoast]

It's interesting about Kristol; is he falling from disfavor at the WH? (sarcasm off) Kristol is someone I automatically tune off and tune out. I just don't care for the guy and his "inner circle" attitude. More than likely now, I will pay attention.

[mr.pink]

I saw Kristol paired with Gergen on with Greta last night. His performance was as amazing as it was desperate. He was really hanging the intel community out to dry in an obscenely broad brush manner. Gergen basically was floored and pretty much called him a sneakey turd...using very diplomatic language of course. I'd have paid $50 to have heard what Gergen was thinking but not saying.

I don't know how anyone in any position of power would give the Kristol the time of day. His aura of duplicity is at downright radioactive levels.