November
2007
Impeachment for Lying? Why do we value dresses over soldiers lives?
I’m sure I’m not the only one thinking of this but now that it’s clear that the Bush administration lied about “weapons of mass destruction” in order to get us into this war in Iraq, doesn’t it make sense that we impeach Bush?
After all, remember what the GOP said about the Clinton impeachment? They said it was for lying, not for the incident of extra-marital oral sex which resulted in the destruction of a blue dress.
But what about the Bush lie?
It has resulted in nearly 4000 American soldiers losing their lives.
A few years ago a republican friend of mine, and yes I have republican friends, said that he had a difficult time back when the President lied. How would he explain to his young daughter that the President lied and since the President lied, how could he teach his child that lying was bad?
My response back then was that it’s not the President’s responsibility to teach his daughter morals — it is his and he needs to look to himself to parent his child, not the ex-President. It seems to me that parenting should be left in the hands of parents and they shouldn’t cede that responsibility away to current events.
Obviously our friendship wasn’t based on our political differences and yes, there is more to life than politics.
Since that time my buddy has unfortunately moved away but I’ve often thought of the conflicts he now wrestles with. If lying was an impeachable offense then, would he think it is an impeachable offense now? If Clinton’s biggest crime was a lie that resulted in the destruction of a blue dress and the damaging of the ex-President’s marriage, would it not be a larger, more heinous crime to lie lead us into a war that would result in nearly 4000 American soldiers dying and thousands of children being left without fathers?
With those two things in mind, which of the two Presidents should face impeachment?
Jim McGuigan
Jim McGuigan
RSS feed
Link
Did Bush lie under oath?
What about all of the other democrats who made similar comments about Iraq/Hussein and WMD’s? Should they all be impeached/kicked out of office for lying? Or is it only Republicans who were guilty of lying?
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[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.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
– Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
WMD to Syria (per General Georges Sada)
Come on Jim McG…please refute every one of the claims made by prominent democrats both before and after GWB was sworn in as President. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t say GWB was lying and then say that Clinton, et al were not lying…
Good god man, is the President Santa Claus or the Pope to you? Are politicians above a certain level quasi-religious figures in whom some kind of naive moralistic FAITH must be maintained — or failing that, they must be good at hiding the truth from the kids that they are not about pure principles of goodness and warm milk???
The TRUTH is anyone with any kind of power, leadership, management role MUST constantly be selective with facts and interpretations of them when it comes to the main task of keeping the whole organization moving in roughly the same direction.
Sometimes bald-faced lies are deemed expedient and necessary to get to desired ends. It’s only the general perceptions of the outcome of that judgment that determines whether it was, on the whole, “good” or not.
Now if Iraq had become, post-invasion, a decent new democracy, nobody would have complained about the lies it took to get there.
The way I see it, the lying and certainly finessing of vague facts prior to the war was exactly, plainly that.
Anyone who believed the Bush admin was guaranteeing certainty about WMDs and “victory” is LYING or STUPID. It was obvious that, at best, he wanted to draw on a known thug who had his hand in his pocket in a suggestive fashion. Why he wanted to do that is a good question.
So is the question of why Bush I invaded Iraq and set the current mess up when Saddam was doing an overall good job as a secular controller of his own populace and a balancing force relative to his larger neighbors.
Answers to these questions would explain the recent history of our leadership’s assumptions, goals, and perceived interests in Iraq — and their relative merits or stupidity. This would suggest some useful courses for the future. Yet this is not what we find in the public discourse. Stupidity and naivete prevails at every level in this country.
Bush should be unpopular but any effort to nail him up to impeachment is — as it was with Clinton and as it always — simply a consequence of darwinian politics: leaders who fail become weak. Weak leaders get challenged and turned on by the pack.
Not to defend the GOP in anyway; but, Dan makes a very valid point here:
“The TRUTH is anyone with any kind of power, leadership, management role MUST constantly be selective with facts and interpretations of them when it comes to the main task of keeping the whole organization moving in roughly the same direction.
Sometimes bald-faced lies are deemed expedient and necessary to get to desired ends. It’s only the general perceptions of the outcome of that judgment that determines whether it was, on the whole, “good” or not.”
If not for watchdogs unveiling discrepancies, these issues might just get by all us DIMWITS … Even journalists too, with their all-mighty pens, are certainly guilty of this; but, they call it: leaving some facts out or *forgetting* they collected those facts. Sometimes afterward, they SAY they were “sloppy” and made mistakes …
We all believe and hear what we want, whatever is convenient or suiting. We all morph everything to suit our needs or the needs of the group.
The reasons why the truths weren’t/aren’t shared with the masses will remain unknown, how can we collectively be so presumptuous to imply that we’d have done it any different? How?
“LYING”, sometimes, it’s part of the job!! Whatever! The lying is NOT the issue!
Sarcasm? I was saying that “lying” happens all the time, and it becomes an issue only when it’s been made an issue.
Yes people believe what they want to believe, and leaders are the same way–plus they’re good at manipulating others based on this principle.
In the case of Iraq, I recall very clearly not “lies” but a lot of spin and soft soap to make thin evidence seem like a justifiable pretext for believing Hussein had WMDs and that this alone was justification for attacking him.
Most but not all of congress and the citizenry went along with that, but now those who did pretend they were misled. I think that is a lie or simply a dimwit’s way of saying they were fool enough to think the presidential hard sell was a kind of guarantee.
If anyone deserves personal blame it is Colin Powell, since he had made a career out of straight talk about the need for clarity of goals, exit strategies, and use of the military that does not get into ugly entanglements. His testimony on Iraqi WMDs prior to the war carried the most credibility and reason for giving the benefit of the doubt to the Bush administration. Yet I distinctly remember getting the impression that Powell had been conscripted to peddle snake oil because there were no clear goals, there was no exit strategy, and the present outcome of foreign occupation was easy to imagine.
Dan:
Sorry, I was agreeing with you.
My comment was directed at Jim. I think this post, others like it, and the Left’s “WMD HE LIED” campaign are also just spin and SEO keyword fingers. These keywords/combos: “WMD”, “BUSH LIED” and “BLUE DRESS” drive more traffic to the site. They are also hot-button topics between the parties and encourage threads.
I will, however, disagree that Colin Powell is personally responsible.
The PNAC collectively made these decisions before many of us were born.
To come to grips with: that fact; where we are now [and stop the incessant whining about impeachment and lying]; if you want to know what is next; read the The Project for a New American Century manifesto. I can’t repeat this enough. Don’t skim the surface of this idealistic and fantastical document either!!