CNN.com - Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?

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

By John W. Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003 Posted: 5:17 PM EDT (2117 GMT)

(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.

...more

is now making millions on the talk curcuit!!). Hate to be pessimistec but nothing will come of this. A critical mass of people do not seem to care that he lies/exacerates/misinforms (or whatever term you want to use)!!

Goodness knows the flags have been there all along !

Republican congress

difference. If there was concrete proof like that now, I believe that it would be ruinous for Bush. Somebody, somewhere has the "goods" on Bush. We only need one hero who is willing to take the huge risk.

Make sure to print and email it from their page.

Should have put the article date on the subject line, my bad. I still thought it would be a good discussion because the buck certainly hasn't stopped at Bush yet :silly:

There is already much grumbling from the Repug side of the aisle.

If calls for impeachment grow too loud, and Bush becomes too un-popular, it might be darned difficult for a Republican to get re-elected unless they show they are not supporting Bush.

Especially if Republicans from their own districts start telling them to impeach.

I encourage you to call the Republican CongressCritters in your state and ask them to impeach.

It would be helpful, if when you call, you happen to be a Republican, or at least if you can say you voted for them the last time they ran.

which is a really serious offense tantamount to treason, I don't know that they'll ever impeach this criminal.

Apparently, you can kill as many innocent civilians as you want.

But you get one stain on an intern's dress, and you're goose is cooked.

Where is Larry Flynt when we need him?

The "law" only goes one way in this country.

(such as Kerry), were saying the same thing as GWB.

n/t

Just thought it was a good article to discuss, and why I put it here instead of LBN (<---learned my lesson there! :::ploink:::).

Note to self: date subject-line articles over 12 hours old :)))

which the Bush Presidency has brought America down to.

Not only that this question needs to be asked, but that there are people who will argue until they're purple that Clinton's lies about sex were worse.

In a sane country, yes, of course. It goes without saying. But in this country? No, you can kill as many people as you want for no reason whatsoever. As long as you believe in the Bible, it's okay.

if they weren't, impeachment would have begun already. Instead, they are trying to protect "Bugsy" DeLay by changing ethics rules in the House, and examining nuclear options concerning fillibusters in the Senate.

STEP BACK! SHIT SPLATTERS WHEN IT HITS THE FAN!

...how have the Dems let us down :(

.

To answer John Dean's question.

but, it could go further on the international court circuit. There is the suit filed in Germany re: Rummy. There's hope another suit may be filed at some point.

And, as the body count increases, and/or the insurgents decide to attack the US (maybe a red state??), opinions about this stupid war may change. Then, the Rethugs facing re-election would have another reason to distance themselves from Bush.

Who lied?

Can anyone remember? Except for those on these forums?

Puleese--the whole thing has been accepted as the "right thing to do"

Lie and invade, take their stuff, pretend to bring some sort of ersatz "freedom", and while you are at it "support the troops" who are killing them in the hundreds of thousands.

Lie? Who cares? It does not matter if we WIN! The lie was justified because we must show the world how powerful we are and we cannot let go of that mind set.

We are winners. We control the world. We can invade anyone we want, and so what if it is a few lies to do so?

nt

Is shear STUPIDITY an impeachable offense ? We already know he didn't "Preserve protect or defend the Constitution of the United States", and the War Powers Act of 1973 Section 4 Reporting ( http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html ) required presumably truthful circumstances:

""REPORTING
Sec. 4. (a)
In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1)
into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2)
into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3)
(A)
the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B)
the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C)
the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
Sec. 4. (b)
The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad.
Sec. 4. (c)
Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months""

On top of that the Joint Resolution authorizing the war lists these same dubious pretexts for the war...http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Please note : "(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution." from the above White House webtext...Ahem.