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.

[ladyinred]

No! He was just trying to protect his family, and we are his family! :-)
Ridiculous vindictive rats! (led by Hillary, trust me)

[BlueNgold]

So you actually think the information was bad?
Well, some of us have been there, seen the intel, and know at least in part what's there.

The statements from 1600 Penn and 11 Downing continue to be strong and unequivocal. There is no backtracking or hedging. Perhaps it is a matter of political timing but I honestly believe it is more likely to be a matter of military expediency. By indicating what we have found we will also indicate to those who know exactly what exists and where it was hidden (IRAQIS) what has not yet been found and therefore what remains theoretically available.

A sceneario that is overlooked is that there are missing elements we are actively tracking down. Indicating that we know what is missing and who we think has it is likely to box the 'owners' into a corner where their only choice is to use what they have or lose it.

Also, remind yourselves that the embedded reporters are gone. Stateside we have NO idea what is happening in the day to day search. What we know at this point is what information CentCom chooses to release, and by now we should be familiar with Gen Franks appreciation for information security.

[Romulus]

I have been one of the orginal believers that GW is using this WMD thing as another way of letting the rats and their mediot buddies play rope a dope.

Then he'd be abusing his power. The President's obligation is either to disclose what he knows or else hold back what must be concealed for reasons of national security. He has no business playing intel peek-a-boo, selectively revealing and withholding information according to his political convenience.

[WFTR]

I doubt that this idiot was so sanctimonious about the truth on national security matters when Algore was answering questions about illegal campaign donations from China.

Saving a few more jobs
Bill

[eddie willers]

Is this the John Dean? The one who started Watergate to hide the fact that he married a call girl? The one who sold out his friends because he knew he'd be someone's punk in jail....

Yep....one and the same.

John Dean...drinking the kool-aid since 1973.

[nutmeg]

Good post (#5)... Thanks.

[nutmeg]

ping!

Also see posts #5 and #33

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘general interest’ ping list.

[JoeSchem]

A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it.

This from the Clinton News Network.

President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.

And Clinton? Can you tell us what happened to CLINTON?????

Well whatever else you can say about President Bush's conduct during the recent war, at least he wasn't getting blow jobs from an intern under the Oval Office desk while discussing troop deployments in harm's way over the phone with a Congressman on the Armed Services Committee.

I still hope the President (and by that I mean the person who is President, and not the person who thinks he's still President) has been honest with the American people. But let's remember where Leftists lowered the standard bar, and let's not allow them to raise it on us alone.

[Young Werther]

I just sent this letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News. I was constricted by the 200 word limit. I didn't even mention the "JFK missile gap" or the LBJ "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution but I didn't want to seem to be piling on the Democraps!!!

"“To Tell the Truth”

A message was received by the Japanese Embassy in Washington DC on Dec 5th, 1943. All sensitive documents were to be destroyed. The Ambassador was to meet with the Secretary of State before 2:00PM Sunday Dec 7, 1941. He was to advise that Japanese/US relations had been terminated. Thus, the attack on Pearl Harbor would not occur before formal diplomatic relations had been severed. US Naval Intelligence was intercepting and decoding Japanese diplomatic messages, but the Pearl Harbor attack was not prevented. Was this an intelligence failure? Was FDR lying to Congress when he asked for a Declaration of War because of this SNEAK ATTACK?

In 1980 Ross Perot hired a soldier of fortune who went into Tehran and rescued EDS employees. President Carter mounted a rescue attempt, which failed miserably. Was this an Intelligence failure on the part of President Carter?

President Clinton attacked a suspected chemical weapons factory in the Sudan. When he described this action was he lying? Was his intelligence faulty? The United States has paid reparations in the hundreds of millions of dollars to the owners of that “ASPIRIN” factory. President Clinton waged war against Bosnia. When the Chinese Embassy was bombed in Belgrade was faulty intelligence being provided to the president?

Intelligence is an imprecise adventure. Many Greek rulers visited the Oracle of Delphi in hopes of divining the future. Yet where is the Greek Empire today? For all of you soothsayers, {truth sayers?}, I need just six numbers!

[BSunday]

I have got just one thing to say to the moron Mr Dean:

Well, okay, maybe two things -

[realpatriot71]

The spin here is going to be "cute," but in the end, spin doesn't find WMD, nor does it legitimize a lie

[headsonpikes]

I, for one, expect the President to be fully prepared to tell whatever lies are necessary to secure the defence of the USA.

The President should be a master conniver, dissembler, and bluffer.

World affairs is not a board game.

[realpatriot71]

I, for one, expect the President to be fully prepared to tell whatever lies are necessary to secure the defence of the USA.

I expect the Pres. to be honest and if that means saying, "We needed to invade Iraq for pragmatic geopolitical reasons" then say it. Don't insult the intelligence of those who voted for you and who you want to vote for you again. I don't care who it is, I won't eat sh!t and then tell everyone how tasty it is .

[jla]

I have been one of the orginal believers that GW is using this WMD thing as another way of letting the rats and their mediot buddies play rope a dope... When enough of them get really vocal and demanding GW's and Tony's heads on a platter, the reality will be shown to the world... That will not change the 25% of lunatic who believe whatever the NY Slimes and ABCNNBCBS say about President Bush... However, it will satisfy the moderates who determine the elections and the faithful like us.

Just thought this deserved to be repeated.
And I'd like to add my own opinion: this President is not capable of lying.
As far as Mr. Dean's opinions, he's just echoing the latest liberal smear tactic, which these folks think will be a burr in Dubya's rear end as the election nears.

[Paulie]

Saddam had quite a bit of advance notice that we were going in. I don't doubt for a minute he had everything Bush says he had, but he probably moved all of it to Syria or Jordan or something as soon as we dispatched the first air carrier.

[finnman69]

WMD gate.

soon to join Enron gate, Halliburton gate, DWI gate, AWOL gate, and other non stories the RATS were desperate to turn into a scandal.

[FairOpinion]

"So the impeachment balloon has been launched... "

---

That is exactly what I feared. People underestimate how low the Democrats are willing to sink and how vicious they are.

Democrats are like piranhas, the vicious little fish, which can bring down even the large and mighty, if they go into the water, into the element of the piranhas. That is why the Republicans must STOP any Congressional hearings, because that puts Bush into the "element of the Democrats".

The Republicans supporting the hearings because "let's find out the truth" and "it can't hurt us" should really think about it. As long as Republicans stick together, with Bush, against the Dems, it's like keeping Bush on the shore, while the piranhas hungrily circle in the water, but they can't get at Bush.

Tell me if the Democrats aren't just like this. Individually they can't do much, but when they gang up on something or someone, they are dangerous, and should not be ignored:

But opening hearings is like throwing Bush into the water, thinking that he can survive the piranhas. Why give the piranhas a chance?!

"When a school of piranha are in a feeding frenzy the water appears to boil and churn red with blood. They attack with such ferocity that they've been seen stripping another fish of its flesh so rapidly all that remains is a head with a mouth still gaping to breathe. Piranhas frequently take bites out of each other during a feeding frenzy and are notorious for their cannibalism. Adult piranha will eat just about anything - other fish, birds, and they've been witnessed taking larger prey, such as jaguars and capybaras. They've even been known to take chunks of flesh out of people. Occasionally, cattle that are weak, sick or injured that have ventured into the water to drink have been attacked by a ravenous school of piranhas and completely devoured within minutes."

[FairOpinion]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." You can see who signed the letter in the attacked copy, but among them are the following Senate Democrats: Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924722/posts

I agree, this information PROVES unequivocably, in their own words, that the Democrats KNEW also that Iraq has WMD, and that their current claims are nothing but a vicious political attack on the President.

This letter should be posted and sent everywhere and conservative columnists should pick it up and publicize it.

[jwalsh07]

Gordon Liddy needs to keep his promise and open up a big can of whoopass on Mr Deanmented.

[FairOpinion]

And how about this Daschle statement? He saw the same intelligence reports Bush saw:

http://www.senate.gov/~daschle/pdf/iraqresolution101002.pdf

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle
on a Resolution Authorizing the President to Use Force,
if Necessary, to End the Threat to World Peace
from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
Thursday, October 10, 2002


Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made
no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated
the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq’s nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That
agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.
For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to
key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no
choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq’s
arsenal.

We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological
agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including
VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible
weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is
committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf
region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to
US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real.
It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.
.....

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized, and used chemical and biological weapons. And he has made
no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated
the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.
As a condition of the truce that ended the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq’s nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons, and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That
agreement is spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.
For the first seven years after the Gulf War, it tried to deceive UN weapons inspectors, block their access to
key sites and make it impossible for them to do their jobs. Finally, in October 1998, the UN was left with no
choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq’s
arsenal.
We do know, however, that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological
agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of world’s deadliest chemical weapons, including
VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible
weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is
committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf
region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to
US security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real.
It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.