News Bush & WMD Claim: A Commentary | FindLaw

[Ivan Seeking]

A commentary that I noticed. Just FYI.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

 

[Zero]

Good article. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you are talking about national security.

 

[russ_watters]

It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But that's allowed by the Constitution.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.

This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But that's allowed by the Constitution.

LOL, again with the rationalizations, the justifications for destroying a president based on lies and innuendo and petty issues.

 

[kyle_soule]

Let's look at the WMD this way for a second.

Let's say a child of 17 had these in his bookbag at school:

receiver, magazine, magazine extension, swivel, swivel retaining ring, receiver shock absorber, carrier latch button, carrier auxiliary latch, carrier latch, carrier latch spring, latch pin, latch pin retaining spring, magazine shell latch, magazine shell, latch spring, cut-off button, cut-off button spring, cut-off button pin, locking block guide, magazine follower, magazine spring, trigger plate assembly, trigger plate pin, cocking slide, breech block slide, gas piston, operating handle, operating handle retaining spring, breech block, locking block, firing pin, firing pin spring, firing pin stop, extractor, extractor plunger, extractor spring, extractor pin, action spring, handguard, handguard front screw, handguard rear screw, handguard screw elastic washer, slide action sleeve, cam , auto/manual fire selector, fire selector frame, fire selector frame pin, fire selector pin, fire selector spring, run piston, barrel assembly, barrel extension, ejector, thread protection bush, protection bush washer, magazine extension retaining spring, selection sleeve valve, sleeve valve friction spring, sleeve valve acting ring, right grip, left grip, grip assembling screw, grip counter screw, pistol grip retaining screw, retaining screw washer, stock fastening drum, stock fastening drum pin, stock fastening drum follower, stock fastening drum follower spring, stock stop pin, stock stop pin spring, stock frame, butt plate, butt plate pivoting pin, butt plate pivoting pin and stock hook circlip, butt plate stop pin, butt plate stop pin spring, butt plate stop pin bush, butt plate stop pin retainer, butt plate shock absorber, stock hook (folding stock version only), stock hook spring, sling, trigger plate, carrier, breech bolt latch, breech bolt latch main pin, breech bolt latch internal pin, breech bolt latch main spring, breech bolt latch auxiliary spring, breech bolt latch spring follower, hand safety, hand safety spring retaining pin, trigger, trigger pin, spacer, trigger lever, trigger lever pin, hammer, hammer pin, hammer spring, hammer spring follower, sear, sear pin, sear spring, auto safety lever, rear trunnion, front trunnion, auto safety spring, auto safety spring guide, trigger guard pin bushing, trigger guard pin detent spring, grip plug, stock fastener, stock fastener washer, and a rear sight.

Now this child also has a guide to assemble a SPAS12. Let's also say a teacher finds this bookbag laying by his desk open, with all the parts just laying in there.

Would you not hope [and expect] the teacher would confiscate this bookbag and turn it into the police? Of course you would, everybody knows these parts make up a SPAS12 shotgun! These are all harmless disassembled, but given enough time the kid will get it all put together. If you were making a case against the child would you not refer to these parts as a SPAS12?

Iraq has the chemicals we gave them, and they aren't cooperating with weapon inspectors, if they had no intentions of using these weapons, and we gave the chemicals to them, why not just say "Hey, the US gave us these to fight Iran, you can have them back now." and show the inspectors where they are? This is enough reason to justify the use of the words WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and justify force in getting these chemicals taken back and/or destroyed.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

That's an excellent article, but I don't think that the president is impeachable, simply because the House has too many Republicans. One thing is for sure, if he were a democrat, he'd have been impeached long ago.

 

[Zero]

Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.

Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.

By a THIRD?? Try finding three random springs and an unrifled tube. There has been no solid evidence of a WMD program, and certainly not one which justifies a war. Don't worry though...Bush will lie again, and say that he is credible(ha) because the world is safer(HA!)...instead of gaining credibility by the simpler traditional method of TELLING THE TRUTH!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A30


CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

That evidence was dismissed as a forgery early this month by United Nations officials investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Bush administration does not dispute this conclusion.

Asked how the administration came to back up one of its principal allegations against Iraq with information its own intelligence service considered faulty, officials said all such assertions were carefully tailored to stay within the bounds of certainty. As for the State of the Union address, a White House spokesman said, "all presidential speeches are fully vetted by the White House staff and relevant U.S. government agencies for factual correctness."...

See the story: CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/archives/front.htm

 

[RageSk8]

Iraq probably does have WMDs somewhere. Even the French know this (and when the French know something...). The administration claimed much more than Iraw merely having WMDs, they claimed Iraq active programs developing and producing WMDs and the ability to deploy those weapons. The discovery of WDMs would do nothing (logically, reality is a different subject) for the Bush administration. Hell, even finding solid evidence of weapon programs would do nothing. This issue is whether the Bush administration mislead the American and world communities on what evidence they did have, on what justification they had in making their claims. And when the CIA, the Bush administrations core resource for intelligence information, expressed doubts both in meetings and in official reports about the administrations claims, clearly there is a big problem here.

 

[kyle_soule]

What I have seen, and I doubt I have been terribly mislead, is that the majority of Iraqi people wanted Saddam removed. If a country's people asked another country to remove their leader because they were being oppressed, tortured and killed for no reason, etc you should hope that the country being called on would help them out. You would never expect such a call because, of course, the person or persons doing the calling would be killed.

Through what I have seen from videos, and such, I have seen the people wanted to be 'liberated', there reactions after 'liberation' are the only way we could tell they were/would have been calling out for some country to help them.

Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.

The ends justify the means?

From below:

That's what I said.

If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.

The ends justify the means?

 

[Sting]

Either way, if no WMD's are found, someone is going to look bad. The Bush administration could blame the intelligence for giving false information and the intelligence could blame the Bush administration for misinterpreting data.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The ends justify the means?

In this case, unequivocably yes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
That's what I said.

If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?

No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.

"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
---- President Eisenhower - January 1961

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.

So we ignore what we find because...why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
So we ignore what we find because...why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?

No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.

By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In this case, unequivocably yes.

And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

That's all very rosy but guess what the war's not over. Hey, that's why there's no democracy - because the war never really ended. Whooda thunkit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.

I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular ] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.

Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

Edit: There is a good reason that "High Crimes" was cited in the original article.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular ] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.

Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

 

[Ganshauk]

Originally posted by Zero
Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

What is right? What is immoral? Who is to judge?

America, my friend, loses everything when we start thinking that what we are doing is bad. All nations use immoral means. They always have. Morality means nothing in the world stage. Publicity is all.

If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period. It is up to you to look around you. Do you want your friends and family to prosper or decline?

Can you kill a ten year old who threatens your family with a bomb? Can you subjugate a population who is bent on your destruction? If you are a relative of the 9/11 bombing I bet you can.

Truth is subjective. The stench of dead loved ones is objective.

I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of their existence. No amount of spin can circumvent the single fact that these bastards want to wipe us ALL out. Every since ~600 A.D. these guys have been positioned to destroy the world.

America, like Europe, is soft - like a marshmallow. We let this crap go on. They get stronger - we get softer. All in the name of PC.

With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

That's some impressive war-mongering, G. I particularly like the part about

If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period.

Sounds pretty cool to me, after all, anarchy results in lots of fun.

I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of their existence

The five tenets? Let's see, what are they...

The major duties, nevertheless, in the life of a Moslem are to fulfill these Five Pillars. They are: 1. The Statement of Faith (Shahadah) 2. The Establishment of Prayers (Salah) 3. The Giving of Alms (Zakah) 4. Fasting (Sawm), and 5. Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj).

Where does it say "fly planes into buildings" ?! Mainstream Islam has been around a long time. Believe it or not, it encourages justice, making it a natural enemy of corruption. It opposes the Law of the Jungle that G so eloquently mouthed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.

What is right? What is immoral? Who is to judge?

America, my friend, loses everything when we start thinking that what we are doing is bad. All nations use immoral means. They always have. Morality means nothing in the world stage. Publicity is all.

If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period. It is up to you to look around you. Do you want your friends and family to prosper or decline?

Can you kill a ten year old who threatens your family with a bomb? Can you subjugate a population who is bent on your destruction? If you are a relative of the 9/11 bombing I bet you can.

Truth is subjective. The stench of dead loved ones is objective.

I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of their existence. No amount of spin can circumvent the single fact that these bastards want to wipe us ALL out. Every since ~600 A.D. these guys have been positioned to destroy the world.

America, like Europe, is soft - like a marshmallow. We let this crap go on. They get stronger - we get softer. All in the name of PC.

With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.

Well, your point is well taken. There are even times when a true patriot must make a personal sacrifice, like political suicide, in order to do the right thing. However, you assume that you have been told the truth. Well, if you remember your history, you will remember that we were told by the senior Bush administration that Iraqi soldiers took babies out of there incubators, threw the babies on the floor, and took the incubators back to Iraq. We were even told that a specific Iraqi convoy fleeing Kuwait was slaughtered and they were the ones who killed all of the babies. Later we found that the critical testimony to this effect came from a nurse who was not really a nurse, but a member of the Kuwaiti Royal family. What's more, the incident never even took place.

Now it appears that we may have been lied to again...this time as the justification for the entire war. The question is not whether or not Saddam is/was a bad guy, the question is, does this country operate according to a constitution or not? By your reasoning, we may as well make Bush King. Have you considered the implications if this war was not justified? The reason so many people objected to this war, including me, was that a distinct lack of evidence was found to support the Bush administration’s claims. Now we can’t find the “tons” of stuff Saddam had stockpiled. I assumed that we likely knew exactly where the weapons were, but for reasons of national security we could not be told. This is the only reason that I wasn't writing letter of protest and such. The fact is, the evidence did not exist, and now it seems that neither did the weapons. If Bush lied, in my mind this could him a war criminal - an unprovoked and unjustified attack on another country? I am still reserving final judgment, but I’m starting to look for a hangin judge.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.

By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.

No, no, no, I'm not saying do away with search warrants, that was only an example. I'm just saying if someone believes something so much that they are willing to stick their own neck out, then let them. If they are wrong and find nothing, punish them, but if they are wrong about their original intentions, but find something equally (or more so in Iraq's case) as bad going on, then the end justifies the means.

Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.

Enemies change though Democracy also changes. So then can values, if what we believed to be values of our enemies x year ago, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe them to be enemies values anymore, and it is also possible that we think these values are for the best. Basically, America has changed (if these are indeed values of old enemies) and if you don't agree with the changing of America then wouldn't it also be true that you don't agree with the democracy and the Constitution? Which you accuse me of wanting to throw out?

Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?

Is it not illegal and immoral to treat the citizens of your country the way Iraq did? Illegal in the sense that murder without cause is wrong no matter what your laws of the country are.

The majority supported the war...doesn't sound like a dictatorship to me. Bad America, doing the right thing...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy.

Are you saying that there is *NOT* ever a time when it is unequivocably clear that action is justified? It sounds to me like you are old enough to remember a pretty big one.

As I stated in another thread (and multiple times during and before the war), there were FOUR reasons for this war, all of which individually made the war justified.

 

[Zero]

When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong. There are times when action is justified. On the other hand, sacrificing your ethics to eliminate a wrong, is to become a wrongness on your own.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong.

In this case, the right thing was done for the right reasons and with the right methods. Now I understand you dispute the reasons, though as I have pointed out countless times, there were FOUR right reasons and you seem to only have a beef with one of them.

I don't see how you can fault the methods here - we fought a war in the middle of all the major cities in Iraq and by the WORST estimates killed only 3300 civilians and 150 of our troops. Thats as close to flawless as war gets.

There are times when action is justified.

WHEN?? When is action justified? How bad exactly does someone or some situation have to be before we say enough is enough?

And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.

 

[Zero]

I don't for a minute dispute the bad news involved in Saddam Hussein. I do think that if WMD were areason, then some effort should have been made to protect sites that contained nuclear materials. In fact, if you look at the sites protected by teh military, you will mostly see oil fields. Nothing was done ahead of time to pursue anything besides oil.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.

The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.

One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.

Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.

Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

You keep missing the point. The "clear and present danger" is the only reason he could legally do what he did. If no danger was clear and present, then the war was illegal. If Bush committed a high crime under constitutional law, then he should go to jail.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.

You may want to recheck your facts on that...Iraq protested the U.S. inspection teams for suspected spying(later confirmed). They asked for UN intervention, and the US responded by pulling out the inspectors.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

John Dean: a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States.

CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

-- The Washington Post

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Thing is though, even if he's guilty enough to impeach, which he may well be, the House has to initiate the proceedure. There are just too many Bush insiders in the House for it to happen. And who's going to take his place, Cheney or Rummy? That's worse. I don't know why, but it is.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
Thing is though, even if he's guilty enough to impeach, which he may well be, the House has to initiate the proceedure. There are just too many Bush insiders in the House for it to happen. And who's going to take his place, Cheney or Rummy? That's worse. I don't know why, but it is.

This is what I thought for a time. But if a crime was committed, criminal charges can be filed after he leaves office. Also, considering that Dean claims

"this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison"

I remind you of the phrase

to flee like rats from a sinking ship

We shall see.

 

[russ_watters]

First things first: Zero, I know I'm going to have to reiterate, this discussion is hypothetical - I don't think Bush lied about anything.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.

Supposing Congress would impeach Bush, what crime exactly would they impeach him for (remember, it was I who said a president can be impeached for damn near anything)? Constitutionally, the President can wake up one morning in a bad mood and bomb France if he wants to. His powers over the military are broad and vague in the Constution. Its a tough issue.

You keep missing the point. The "clear and present danger" is the only reason he could legally do what he did. If no danger was clear and present, then the war was illegal.

Ivan, I provided a handful of examples where "clear and present danger" wasn't required. It wasn't required here either whether he invoked it or not. Bush didn't have to get approval to go to war in Iraq. He choose justify it for political reasons. So if he had lied, it wouldn't have made any difference.

Ivan, I'm just not seeing what you are seeing here. I'm going to have to invoke the Clinton example (sorry). Clinton was impeached because he lied UNDER OATH. Though he lied in speaches dozens of times about the same things, legally (and politically of course) it only mattered when he lied under oath.

HOWEVER, I must stress again that Congress COULD impeach and remove Bush for a bad haircut if they wanted to because impeachment is a political process, not a leagal one. So the question really is: do they want to? And can they survive the political implications?

Iraq protested the U.S. inspection teams for suspected spying(later confirmed). They asked for UN intervention, and the US responded by pulling out the inspectors.

Zero, Are you suggesting that Saddam was showing the inspectors everything they wanted to see?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

"this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison"

Considering John Dean was PART of the Water-Gate scandal, I'm sure he was more than happy to compare it to Bush's (unlikely but) possible (to some) scandal, makes him look better. It would be his, and others, first chance to get their names off the "dirt" list.

Basically, I don't see any credibility in this quote.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Remember that only Congress has the legal right to declare war. However, the President can send forces into combat for up to 60 days by his own discretion under certain circumstances. The War Powers Act states:

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

I don't remember War being declared by Congress.
Was there any specific statutory authorization? I don't know. I think that the answer probably is "No."
Was there a national emergency created by attack upon the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces? No, Iraq did not attack us.

And I think if bush, cheney, powell, etc. had lied to us to sell the war (which I think they undoubtedly did), would that be some kind of felony or "breach of the peace"?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan

And I think if bush, cheney, powell, etc. had lied to us to sell the war (which I think they undoubtedly did), would that be some kind of felony or "breach of the peace"?

It dopesn't matter, according to Russ, because if Congress doesn't sue for impeachment, nothing Bush does can be considered wrong, illegal, or unAmerican.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The War Powers Act states:...

There is a good reason Congress has never invoked the War Powers Act - its unconstitutional and they know it. They'd rather have it in the books for show than try to use it and lose it altogether.

Was there any specific statutory authorization? I don't know. I think that the answer probably is "No."

Yes, Congress specifically authorized force against Iraq (in fact, they gave him a specific amount of money, which he came in UNDER). I believe in this case, Bush asked for it, but that's neither here nor there - its not required. In 1990, Bush I did NOT ask for it, but they gave it to him anyway to avoid a War Powers Act challenge.

Was there a national emergency created by attack upon the US, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces? No, Iraq did not attack us.

How many times do I have to say that's not required? Do you want MORE examples?

And I think if bush, cheney, powell, etc. had lied to us to sell the war (which I think they undoubtedly did), would that be some kind of felony or "breach of the peace"?

Like I said before, I don't think they did, but *IF* they had (or if enough people think they did) it STILL wouldn't be a criminal offense. They simply do not need our permission so anything they do to GET our permission is irrelevant.

Originally posted by ZeroIt dopesn't matter, according to Russ, because if Congress doesn't sue for impeachment, nothing Bush does can be considered wrong, illegal, or unAmerican.

Zero, when you know its not true, that makes it a *LIE*. We covered this in my thread a couple of months ago about the difference between errors and lies. Stop posting lies about me.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, when you know its not true, that makes it a *LIE*. We covered this in my thread a couple of months ago about the difference between errors and lies. Stop posting lies about me.

Show me a lie about you, and I'll apologize. Show me two lies about you, and when I apologize, I'll mean it!

You have stated several times, with a fair amount of clarity and apparent knowledge, that Bush's actions only become officially illegal when impeachment begins. Until then, whatever he says goes...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Show me a lie about you, and I'll apologize. Show me two lies about you, and when I apologize, I'll mean it!

You have stated several times, with a fair amount of clarity and apparent knowledge, that Bush's actions only become officially illegal when impeachment begins. Until then, whatever he says goes...

Zero, that's not what you said in your previous post, and its still not what I said before. You included the words "wrong" and "unAmerican" in the post I quoted. And I said quite explicitly that the word "illegal" doesn't even apply to the impeanchemt process. "Impeachment is a POLITICAL action, not a legal one." (word for word, spelling corrected, emphasis added)

Just about every time you say "according to Russ..." what follows is a lie because if what followed were true, you would simply quote me instead of needing to paraphrase. You need to paraphrase becasue what you WANT me to have said is not what I said.

You did say one thing that is true though: when I write, I purposely write with clarity (unlike you, I might add) to avoid having people like you be able to lie about me and get away with it.

Maybe I should just put it in my sig: Zero, stop posting lies about me.

I don't want an apology, I just want you to stop.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, that's not what you said in your previous post, and its still not what I said before. You included the words "wrong" and "unAmerican" in the post I quoted.

Just about every time you say "according to Russ..." what follows is a lie because if what followed were true, you would simply quote me instead of needing to paraphrase. You need to paraphrase becasue what you WANT me to have said is not what I said.

Maybe I should just put it in my sig: Zero, stop posting lies about me.

Maybe, instead, your sig line should read, "Zero, don't follow my attitude to its logical conclusion"...that would be more accurate. I should have made it clear that I was simply extrapolaling from what you say, not quoting. The implication of your current postings on the law gives the appearance that whatever Bush does is ok, so long as no one tries to convict him of it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ,
I don't understand your position on this. I'm not sure if you're a cynic or a die hard Bush devotee. If you check this explanation provided by a Bush advisor for the justification of the use of force in Iraq, you will see that "a threat to national security" justifies the use of force.

http://usembassy.state.gov/japan/wwwh20030324b4.html

If this threat did not exist, then Bush did not have the legal authority to attack Iraq. If false information was used to justify the attack, and if Bush had knowledge of this, then Bush is guilty of a high crime for perpetrating a fraud on the United States government. I am sure that other conspiracy laws would kick in as well.

Edit: As far as any chances for impeachment, I think this will be a matter of timing. If Bush chooses not to run again, or if he fails to get elected, then I doubt that this thing will be far enough along for the political fall out. But if he serves a second term, then if this potential scandal gains momentum and no WMDs are found, just as with Nixon, Bush will find himself very alone. In either case, if this story has legs, then whether or not he is impeached, criminal charges are a near certainty. The Clinton attack dogs will not be forgotten; especially if the Bush attack dogs smell blood.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Considering John Dean was PART of the Water-Gate scandal, I'm sure he was more than happy to compare it to Bush's (unlikely but) possible (to some) scandal, makes him look better. It would be his, and others, first chance to get their names off the "dirt" list.

Basically, I don't see any credibility in this quote.

Yes I would agree that due to his experience, Dean has a unique historical perspective on this issue. Considering that Watergate was 30 years ago, I seriously doubt that he needs to deflect attention from himself. Besides, not only is he an old right winger, we have had Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Rice, Lewinski, and plenty of other conspriracies to keep peoples attention.

So, if the potential for conspiracy by the President or his cabinet, to perpetrate a fraud on the United State Congress, in order to start an illegal war is not a scandal, then what is? This would make Clinton look like a Boy Scout by any comparison.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

If weapons are nowhere to be found, and Iraq was indeed in compliance with res 1441, then the Pentagon would have no choice but to plant WMD in Iraq and claim that it is legally right.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes I would agree that due to his experience, Dean has a unique historical perspective on this issue. Considering that Watergate was 30 years ago, I seriously doubt that he needs to deflect attention from himself. Besides, not only is he an old right winger, we have had Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Rice, Lewinski, and plenty of other conspriracies to keep peoples attention.

Watergate not being comparable to any of those scandals.

All I see here is an [early] attempt to wipe the Watergate scandal off the top position as worst scandal. The war isn't even over, would it be a scandal if they find WMD? They are still looking so how can people be calling this a scandal at all?! That is a whole country to sweep, it will take a little longer than a few months, anyways, resistence is still there, you can't just walk around looking for weapons when you have the threat of a cross-hair lining up to ur head.

It wouldn't matter how long ago Watergate was, its still the worst scandal in Governments history, and because of this attention is still on it and more attention will be drawn to it as people talk about our current situation being a scandal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Watergate not being comparable to any of those scandals.

All I see here is an [early] attempt to wipe the Watergate scandal off the top position as worst scandal. The war isn't even over, would it be a scandal if they find WMD? They are still looking so how can people be calling this a scandal at all?! That is a whole country to sweep, it will take a little longer than a few months, anyways, resistence is still there, you can't just walk around looking for weapons when you have the threat of a cross-hair lining up to ur head.

It wouldn't matter how long ago Watergate was, its still the worst scandal in Governments history, and because of this attention is still on it and more attention will be drawn to it as people talk about our current situation being a scandal.

Yes we must still allow some time and see what happens. I have serious doubts since, if our intelligence was any good, we should have known right where the weapons are. So, we will wait. If we find them, and if they are truly significant, then like I have said all along, in spite of my complete distrust of the Bushes or any of their friends, I'll vote for the guy. If we don't find the WMDs, then I'll be the first guy in line clamoring for a jail sentence. As far a Dean, yes I agree, the Republican conspiracies are always the biggest. However, to assume that Watergate motivates his statements, well, to me this sounds like a rationalization to avoid the implications of his statements.