CNN: Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

Matt Simis

Dont think this has been posted already:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

"In an apparent attempt to bolster the President's credibility, and his own, Secretary Rumsfeld himself has now called for a Defense Department investigation into what went wrong with the pre-war intelligence. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd finds this effort about on par with O.J.'s looking for his wife's killer."


Matt

bug

Watching ITN news channel on Saturday afternoon they spoke of a leaked document from the Pentagon stating that their was doubt whether or not Iraq had WMD, and congress was calling for an inquiry, this document was dated just before "war" broke out, I haven't heard anything since.

spongebob

Nixon dumped more bombs on Cambodia than the US did on ALL of Europe in WW2

He never declared war on Cambodia before doing so.

He was never impeached for it.

Lying is part of the job in the white house

Originally posted by Muck
He was never impeached for it.

Lying is part of the job in the white house

They got him in the end though...
mm

DadaKopf

In Britain, it looks as if Alastair Campbell might be made the scapegoat, even though questions will then be asked about who gave him instructions to mislead the public. Until the truth comes out, the press simply won't back down.

In the US, they'll do the same and shift the blame onto disloyal, 'rogue elements' in either the Dept of State, Dept of Defense or the intelligence community.

What *is* becoming clear is that the DoD and the Oval Office ignored repeated warnings and unfavourable reports from the CIA because they didn't fit in with the Bush regime's political manifesto. Rather, they took intelligence documents written by members of the Iraqi National Congress and pro-West/pro-Zionist think tanks which were merely pushing their own agendas and saw the US as a good tool to achieve them and, since those agendas suit the Bush regime's appetites, they don't mind so much either. If this is the case, it stands to reason that the reality behind this criminal distortion, though designed by the Bush administration, will turn out to be a lot more Kafkaesque. It simply won't be possible to blame any one individual or organisation. Everyone is culpable.

Anyway...

Blix commented that he got little help from the US and when he did, their intelligence reports were nothing of the sort - even though the US was obliged to hand over all intelligence documents to UNSCOM and UNMOVIC as per the terms of Resolution 1441.

Should Bush be impeached? Absolutely. All the evidence points to a flagrant abuse of the office of president. Within the American context, I think a valid argument could be made, as some loyal American patriots are already claiming, that Bush and his cohorts are guilty of treason. Within the international context, Bush broke the law - plain and simple.

Can Bush be impeached, or if so, is it likely? Not really. The Republicans own Congress and the Senate and the Supreme Court. Unless I'm wrong, it's Congress that has to vote to impeach the president, but impeachment only means that there must be a trial to decide whether he broke the law. And then, that's only US law. Even if his own house impeached him, it's unlikely a pro-Republican Supreme Court would find him guilty. I suppose it's still too early to predict the American course of action - this may still snowball into a public outrage.

This debate now exists in the US nonetheless and, rather than dominating election discourse, it's going to augment the case against him in relation to accusations fiscal mismanagement and pro-corporate, anti-American Joe policies which is already a cause of resentment. The price Bush will pay is that he and his party won't get re-elected.

Back to Blair, though. It'd be a shame if he had to step down as PM because nobody would vote Labour in the next election and it'd be back to Conservative rule and everyone's better off with a bad Labour government than a good Conservative one.

Lemming

Originally posted by DadaKopf

Can Bush be impeached, or if so, is it likely? Not really. The Republicans own Congress and the Senate and the Supreme Court. Unless I'm wrong, it's Congress that has to vote to impeach the president, but impeachment only means that there must be a trial to decide whether he broke the law. And then, that's only US law (I'm not sure about where international law fits into any of this but it never bothers the US anyway). It's unlikely that a Republican house will impeach their own president so it's unlikely it'd even get to the Supreme Court.

I'm not so sure that it's as cut and dried as that. Politicians are concerned with their survival. If it looked like the Republican party was going to take an unmerciful beating at the polls over this, I'd not be surprised to see him [Bush] being impeached by his own people in an attempt to restore voter confidence.

I dunno.

seamus

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Back to Blair, though. It'd be a shame if he had to step down as PM because nobody would vote Labour in the next election and it'd be back to Conservative rule and everyone's better off with a bad Labour government than a good Conservative one.

I agree. IMO, Blair is actually quite a capable leader, but just lost his way this time. By the time he realised his mistake, he was already in it up to his testicles, and so had to continue to support and give his backing to the war, hoping for the best.

vorbis

there is still the view that the war was justified but thats another matter. However though as for impeachment, you can't be serious! Lemming I'm astounded that you could see impeaching your party leader as a sign of confidence in your party. In fairness people take off the anti Bush glasses and view this rationally. If they impeached Bush, the Republicans would be exterminated in the next election. Impeachment would shatter the entire party's credibility.

Lemming

Originally posted by vorbis
there is still the view that the war was justified but thats another matter. However though as for impeachment, you can't be serious! Lemming I'm astounded that you could see impeaching your party leader as a sign of confidence in your party. In fairness people take off the anti Bush glasses and view this rationally. If they impeached Bush, the Republicans would be exterminated in the next election. Impeachment would shatter the entire party's credibility.

There's a flip side to taht coin Vorbis, and that' swhat I was trying to comment on. If keeping Bush in power was going to be utterly detremental to the health of the Republican party, I wouldn't be surprised (read the wording of what I've just said carefully) to see some sort of attempt to keep the party afloat by saying "Well, we're with you, the voting public, on this. We ALSO think he was a poor choice for leader and we have your best intentions at heart. We're really good. Vote for us".

My point is that at the core of it, just about every politician on this earth is concerned with one thing. Political survival.

Orion

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Back to Blair, though. It'd be a shame if he had to step down as PM

I disagree. Blair started off a the new white hope but more than lost his way. He became more and more a puppet of GWB. IMHO he's forgotten the people who put him where he is - he closer to old Tory policies than some of the Tories.

The question is if he steps down who'll replace him? Brown is the obvious candidate but I don't think he'd be any better. Cook is another candidate - but I can't see him winning the popular vote when they go to the country.

How about Red Ken for PM?

shotamoose

There's an article in today's Guardian to the effect that senior Al Qaeda members in US custody told the CIA that there was no connection between them and Saddam's regime. The CIA shared this information with the government and with other intelligence agencies but everyone decided that it wasn't worth telling the public about.

Their pants are so on fire right now.

Chaos-Engine

apparently getting head off your intern is however ;)

Originally posted by shotamoose
There's an article in today's Guardian to the effect that senior Al Qaeda members in US custody told the CIA that there was no connection between them and Saddam's regime. The CIA shared this information with the government and with other intelligence agencies but everyone decided that it wasn't worth telling the public about.

Their pants are so on fire right now.

Hmmm, I'm wondering if information gained from captured Alq'ueda members is worth anything though...
Considering these guys, are willing to die for their cause,they would also undergo plenty of U.S interogation/torture, including Barney music, before revealing secrets.
Lying to the CIA or who ever would be second nature...
mm

DeVore

OOPS!


Of course the US presumed that Iraq had WMD. Shure didnt they sell them to them!

DeV.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Hmmm, I'm wondering if information gained from captured Alq'ueda members is worth anything though...
Considering these guys, are willing to die for their cause,they would also undergo plenty of U.S interogation/torture, including Barney music, before revealing secrets.
Lying to the CIA or who ever would be second nature...

Yeah, but when the US has trotted out allegations of captured "detainees" backing up allegations of this, that and the other, it was perfectly acceptable to use at least as a media-bite, if not as actual intelligence.

As for Blair....he has convinced me a bit more that he is willing to act on what he believes in. Not what the public wants, and not necessarily what the party wants(although the latter is personal belief, not substantiatable fact), but what he wants.

When his vision is in step with others', he is a superb asset. When it isnt - as is becoming somewhat the case in this affair - its kinda clear that he will still do what he wants....what he believes is right. No middle ground...if you're in a position to get what you want....go for it.

Bush (or his "steering comittee"), and Blair both strike me as very similar in this regard. Negotiation and compromise only seem to be tools for when all else has failed.

jc

DMC

Originally posted by DeVore
Shure didnt they sell them to them!

Rumsfeld, of all people, should know!

Thomas

Originally posted by DMC
Rumsfeld, of all people, should know!

Well - at least Rumsfeld played a big role in neutralising the threat he helped create in the 80's.

But, if there wasn't a recent threat and GWB knowingly lied about it, then he most certainly should be impeached.

T

shotamoose

I'm not sure Bush knew he was lying, because I don't think he took the trouble to find out if there was any evidence that contradicted his worldview. I think he has his beliefs and doesn't think it necessary to investigate their real validity - in fact I'd speculate that he feels this would somehow undermine the value of having beliefs in the first place.

Blair is different. I just can't accept that he really, really believed that Iraq posed an imminent WMD threat to the rest of the world, and that it had strong links with Al-Qaeda. I think he took a decision based on political pragmatism, but as it was challenged he somehow convinced himself that he had taken it on the basis of principle and the available evidence. That's what enabled him to go on tv show after tv show and display absolute conviction is the face of ridicule. It's quite a bizarre ability, if you ask me - evidence of a slightly deranged mind but perfect for politics.

Thomas

Originally posted by shotamoose
I'm not sure Bush knew he was lying, because I don't think he took the trouble to find out if there was any evidence that contradicted his worldview.

Blair is different. I just can't accept that he really, really believed that Iraq posed an imminent WMD threat to the rest of the world, and that it had strong links with Al-Qaeda. I think he took a decision based on political pragmatism, but as it was challenged he somehow convinced himself that he had taken it on the basis of principle and the available evidence. That's what enabled him to go on tv show after tv show and display absolute conviction is the face of ridicule. It's quite a bizarre ability, if you ask me - evidence of a slightly deranged mind but perfect for politics.

What you say about Bush may be true, and if so, it's a sign of gross incompetence and possibly criminal negligence.

Blair, during the public relations campaign, often mentioned details of how brutal and oppressive Hussein's regime was. I believe that he felt he was truly doing the right thing removing this dictator from power. But, he also knew that people wouldn't accept going to war just to remove a dictator no matter how brutal they might be, so it suited him to hype up the WMD fears. I don't think he is deranged - he just wanted to do, what he felt was, the right thing.

If this turned out to be the case, whether people were pro or anti the war, I doubt they would continue to support him and his post would soon be up for grabs.

T

Originally posted by bonkey
Yeah, but when the US has trotted out allegations of captured "detainees" backing up allegations of this, that and the other, it was perfectly acceptable to use at least as a media-bite, if not as actual intelligence.

jc

Yes, they can do that to suit their purpose,they must know at the same time what type of people they are dealing with, ie those that would undergo any kind of torture for Allah, yet still spill out stuff to distract the Americans.
The U.S couldn't be so naive on the one hand as to think otherwise and yet be so clever to be manipulative on the other.
It's either one or the other and I suspect the latter.
mm

Sparks

Man,
I'm just wondering how you can have that opinion and still support the US!

Cabaal

Originally posted by DeVore

Of course the US presumed that Iraq had WMD. Shure didnt they sell them to them!

DeV.

True, But it seems maybe Iraq sold them off to another country in order to keep the country running because the UN Sanctions?

Sparks

No, it seems that they were destroyed by UNSCOM, as everyone outside the US/K was saying.

Éomer of Rohan

Yes, they can do that to suit their purpose,they must know at the same time what type of people they are dealing with, ie those that would undergo any kind of torture for Allah, yet still spill out stuff to distract the Americans.

Everyone breaks eventually, no matter what. Sensory deprivation tanks, drugs, torture, psychological warfare; no matter who you are or how much training you get, you will break, it is simply a question of when. The Al-Quaeda and Taliban prisoners have been in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for over a year and a half; it is unreasonable to think that they would not have spilled their guts. Which means that the Americans had a fair idea that some of the upper echelons of AQ had no idea that there was a connection with Iraq or that they genuinely didn't have such a connection; given that there is probably not the greatest amount of secrecy within such an organisation, then I would guess it is the latter. The course of the argument sort of supports this;

Initially Rumsfeld and Powell both declare that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with Al-Quaeda and the Taliban and it's all quiet on the Western Front.

An extremely tenuous link is made between 'terror-states' and the 'axis of evil' and AQ - pretty much simply by mentioning them in the same sentence at least a half dozen times in every press release from the White House.

Paul Wolfowitz among others makes the comment that even if Saddam did not support AQ there is no gaurantee that he would not do so in the future if it served his interest. This increases the popular notion of a link between the two 'enemies.' The campaign to 'Free Iraq' begins and human rights issues are thrown into the debate.

There is still not enough support for a war on Iraq and resolution 1441 is not strong enough to justify one so Bush and Blair start the whole WMD disaster scenario to play on the insecurities of their peoples who remember september the 11th 2001.

.....skip the abandonment of international law and the war....

WMD argument proving to be a false excuse under which poodle and toxic texan hid.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
I'm just wondering how you can have that opinion and still support the US!

Er...Sparks,maybe because politically,morally,and socially, I don't support GWB.
I'm not going to fall into the trap, of condemning the U.S outright just because currently they have someone I disagree with in the Whitehouse.
It's not my purpose to support the U.S president on Boards.ie in the last number of months-Far from it.
I just challenge statements that I think need to be challenged, and where my mind is changed, or I find agreement I leave it be.
Thats no different to what most do here,which is good debate.
mm

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Everyone breaks eventually, no matter what. Sensory deprivation tanks, drugs, torture, psychological warfare; no matter who you are or how much training you get, you will break, it is simply a question of when. The Al-Quaeda and Taliban prisoners have been in Guanatanamo Bay, Cuba for over a year and a half; it is unreasonable to think that they would not have spilled their guts. Which means that the Americans had a fair idea that some of the upper echelons of AQ had no idea that there was a connection with Iraq or that they genuinely didn't have such a connection; given that there is probably not the greatest amount of secrecy within such an organisation, then I would guess it is the latter. The course of the argument sort of supports this;

I disagree, everybody doesn't break,and also, how do the Americans know what any inmate in Guantanamo says might be rubbish?
mm