Ironworks Gaming Forum - Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28)

- - Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86506)

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/" target="_blank">Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
</a>
By John W. Dean
excerpt:

Quote:

In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed...
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."

Personally, I don't care about reasons. Saddam was an animal who needed to be taken out of power by whatever means necessary. Have you seen what he used to do to the Kurds?! He had to go, the only mistake America made is not removing him after the last Gulf War.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaskez:
Personally, I don't care about reasons. Saddam was an animal who needed to be taken out of power by whatever means necessary. Have you seen what he used to do to the Kurds?! He had to go, the only mistake America made is not removing him after the last Gulf War.

But it's not about weither taking out Saddam was good or bad. It's about lying to Congress and the American Public. I remember another recent president that was nearly impeached for lying about less grave matters then taking he country to war. Unless of course we are no longer a nation of Law, but one were the rulers can sit safely above it.

Silly people, who you gonna say lied? Bush?, Cheney?, Powell? Bush 1?, Clinton? CIA? FBI?, UN?, UNSCOMM?, Blix and his team? They all said that Saddam had the Weapons, they just disagree where they are and what happened to them. Sheesh what fruit cakes.

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:

Silly people, who you gonna say lied? Bush?, Cheney?, Powell? Bush 1?, Clinton? CIA? FBI?, UN?, UNSCOMM?, Blix and his team? They all said that Saddam had the Weapons, they just disagree where they are and what happened to them. Sheesh what fruit cakes.

Never thought of John Dean as a fruitcake. Is he too far to the left for your taste?

Funny thing about WoMD's is that when Blix was looking prior to the war the Administration kept insisting they were not looking hard enough or in the right places. Now that the shoe is on the other foot we are told it may take years, if at all, to find them. Sounds like disembling to me.

Quote:

[img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] Whatever the "wag" was, it needed to happen. I just wish we would have killed him, with proof.

De...mo..cra...cy? Since when does that apply to anything political nowadays :D ;)

I have asked that no war related posts to be made in Gencon. Closing.