Bush & WMD Claim: A Commentary | FindLaw

[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.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
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.

I agree, we should have known where the weapons were, but to have instantaneous knowledge of the whole country is a bit unrealistic, weapons move and intelligence just can't (no matter how good) keep up to the minute data on it.

What if the man truly thought there were weapons. If he did then he went to war to protect from what he thought was a threat. You want to throw him in jail because he was trying to protect his country from the danger he saw? A bit harsh for simply being wrong, and eliminating a threat that needed to be eliminated, even if for different reasons than WMD.

However, to assume that Watergate motivates his statements, well, to me this sounds like a rationalization to avoid the implications of his statements.

Couldn't all explanations be considered rationalization to avoid implications? I mean, if his statement was truly motivated by Watergate, then the explanation that it was motivated by Watergate would seem questionable if you thought his statement was correct. So what it really comes down to is you think, if the scandal comes through, it is the worst scandal in the United States history. Dean's quote simply adds a some validity and perhaps prestige to what you believe. If this is so, it is fair enough.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I agree, we should have known where the weapons were, but to have instantaneous knowledge of the whole country is a bit unrealistic, weapons move and intelligence just can't (no matter how good) keep up to the minute data on it.

What if the man truly thought there were weapons. If he did then he went to war to protect from what he thought was a threat. You want to throw him in jail because he was trying to protect his country from the danger he saw? A bit harsh for simply being wrong, and eliminating a threat that needed to be eliminated, even if for different reasons than WMD.



Couldn't all explanations be considered rationalization to avoid implications? I mean, if his statement was truly motivated by Watergate, then the explanation that it was motivated by Watergate would seem questionable if you thought his statement was correct. So what it really comes down to is you think, if the scandal comes through, it is the worst scandal in the United States history. Dean's quote simply adds a some validity and perhaps prestige to what you believe. If this is so, it is fair enough.

To be honest, it is only with great effort that I can consider that Bush may have been doing the right thing. So, even though I truly believe the worst of the Bushes, if he was lied to, then the liars should be held accountable. It is possible that this was simply an honest mistake, but an error of this magnitude...boy, that's a difficult one to overlook. The Bush administration pushed this thing down everyone’s throat; including Tony Blair's. I lean heavily towards the notion that the luxury of innocent mistakes is void is this context. It is likely that tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts died in this war – many of which were likely victims in this as much the people we were "saving". How many people must die before we cannot accept such an innocent mistake? Bush had a responsibility to be positive before taking an action such as this. Other options could have been explored: Bush could have made assassinations legal and gone after Saddam that way. We could have virtually occupied his country with weapons inspectors. We could have cut deals with his neighbors to incite a political coup. If unjustified, it was the rush to war, not just the war, that begs for justice. I will do a complete about face if we find the imminent threat that supposedly existed. Unfortunately, being a former republican soured by lies and deceit, I have every confidence that most of what we were told were lies. Note also that, at least the last time I checked, no ties to Al Qaeda have been found either...the other big lie! Finally, considering that British Intel just announced that a WMD will likely be used soon, we can see what a great job the Bush administration has done to diminish the threat to our national security.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Finally, considering that British Intel just announced that a WMD will likely be used soon, we can see what a great job the Bush administration has done to diminish the threat to our national security.

Let me get this straight, you first denounce the war on the reasoning of WMD, you then use the argument of WMD to contradict your first statement. In reality, you are critisizing Bush for using force due to WMD and critisizing his lack of force used in the search for WMD. This can't be.

It is possible that this was simply an honestly mistaken, but an error of this magnitude...boy, that's a difficult one to overlook.

An overlooking of the threat (if we would have been attacked with a WMD) would have been even greater.

The Bush administration pushed this thing down everyone’s throat; including Tony Blair's.

I find this hard to believe, Tony Blair was receiving heavy opposition at home, if he would have been questioning Iraq having WMD he would have had a legitimate reason to sit on the sideline.

It is likely that tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts died in this war – many of which were likely victims in this as much the people we were "saving".

We went into this war to fight Iraq's military, they could have thrown woman and children out there, that doesn't matter, we couldn't help that. Our intent was not to fight conscripts or innocent people, if we could have had our way it would have been entirely military casualties.

How many people must die before we cannot accept such an innocent mistake?

We had our wake up call, how many people died September 11th? Any possible threat is magnified by the possible threat of another terrorist attack.

Bush had a responsibility to be positive before taking an action such as this. Other options could have been explored: Bush could have made assassinations legal and gone after Saddam that way. We could have virtually occupied his country with weapons inspectors. We could have cut deals with his neighbors to incite a political coup. If unjustified, it was the rush to war, not just the war, that begs for justice.

All other means would have came with equal criticism. No matter what he chose to do would have been risky, at least he didn't risk innocent Americans lives. Over the many years Saddam has been a threat, all of our other options were exhausted. How would have the rest of the countries looked at us if we would have swamped his country with weapons inspectors? That would have drawn just as much negative attention as the force Bush chose to use. Cut deals with who? Syria, Iran? Turkey wouldn't even let us use their air space (if I remember correctly). Their neighbors weren't invested as we were in the situation, there is enough turmoil between their neighbors as it is, allying with the United States would cause more.

Note also that, at least the last time I checked, no ties to Al Qaeda have been found either...the other big lie!

I agree here, I believe a very weak link could have been drawn between the two, and he exploited that, not entirely lied about it. This is done all the time at the grocery store, we don't accuse them of high crimes

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by 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.

We're going around in circles here. My point (again) is that Bush didn't need a justification, so the content of the justification he used is irrelevant.

The reason he gave any justification at all is for public opinion (and for foreign support) - he's trying to be re-elected.

And for Zero, I must say (again) that though the justification is irrelevant, I still believe it to be valid.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I always amuses me to see these posts get longer, and longer, and longer...

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Let me get this straight, you first denounce the war on the reasoning of WMD, you then use the argument of WMD to contradict your first statement. In reality, you are critisizing Bush for using force due to WMD and critisizing his lack of force used in the search for WMD. This can't be.

The question is: Was this explanation used as an excuse to further some other agenda? I am not saying that terrorism poses no threat, rather I am wondering if Saddam had anything to do with it.

An overlooking of the threat (if we would have been attacked with a WMD) would have been even greater.

Perhaps. Of course, this assumes that they didn't do things like; to conveniently ignore the CIA...whoops...we already know they did that.

I find this hard to believe, Tony Blair was receiving heavy opposition at home, if he would have been questioning Iraq having WMD he would have had a legitimate reason to sit on the sideline..

Blair wanted to use a more subtle approach but the Bush people convinced him of the imminent threat.

We went into this war to fight Iraq's military, they could have thrown woman and children out there, that doesn't matter, we couldn't help that. Our intent was not to fight conscripts or innocent people, if we could have had our way it would have been entirely military casualties..

Most of the military were probably victims as much as anyone. Except for the radical elements, these guys had no choice. Have you noticed how the number of Iraqi military causalities is never mentioned? The correct number is likely tens of thousands. If this war was based on a lie, then what should the penalty be for 30,000 deaths?

We had our wake up call, how many people died September 11th? Any possible threat is magnified by the possible threat of another terrorist attack.

The point is that one may have nothing to do with the other. Many Middle East experts have argued that our actions only serve to create alliances between groups that are otherwise enemies. It is American strength in the Middle East that creates all of the hate that motivate terrorist in the first place. Abuse of military power, the justification for which is based on lies, to me would be nothing short of a war crime.

All other means would have came with equal criticism. No matter what he chose to do would have been risky, at least he didn't risk innocent Americans lives. Over the many years Saddam has been a threat, all of our other options were exhausted. How would have the rest of the countries looked at us if we would have swamped his country with weapons inspectors? That would have drawn just as much negative attention as the force Bush chose to use. Cut deals with who? Syria, Iran? Turkey wouldn't even let us use their air space (if I remember correctly). Their neighbors weren't invested as we were in the situation, there is enough turmoil between their neighbors as it is, allying with the United States would cause more...

I agree here, I believe a very weak link could have been drawn between the two, and he exploited that, not entirely lied about it. This is done all the time at the grocery store, we don't accuse them of high crimes

If Bush and his advisors were acting in good conscience, then I mostly agree. For me, this whole thing really comes down to motive. I perceive Bush as a…insert some really nasty words here...who rushed to war for political gain. I wouldn't really mind being wrong about this. There was a meeting today in Congress where the evidence had prior to the attack on Iraq was presented. We will see what comes of this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
We're going around in circles here. My point (again) is that Bush didn't need a justification, so the content of the justification he used is irrelevant.

The reason he gave any justification at all is for public opinion (and for foreign support) - he's trying to be re-elected.

And for Zero, I must say (again) that though the justification is irrelevant, I still believe it to be valid.

OK help me out here. I have posted references, the most significant one being directly from the US embassy website. Why do you think that a president can abuse military power at a whim? I agree that the use of military power is a complicated issue; one about which I don't claim to be an expert. But I also know that this country is not supposed to operate as a military dictatorship. Before we go around in any more circles, why don't you post some legal evidence, such as a constitutional amendment, that would give the president unregulated use of military power? The Bush spokesman made it pretty clear I thought that "a threat to national security" was the justification.

Besides, even if he had the legal authority, a fraud perpetrated on the United States government is still a crime. So, he could be charged for the lie, in spite of the war.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Let me get this straight, you first denounce the war on the reasoning of WMD, you then use the argument of WMD to contradict your first statement. In reality, you are critisizing Bush for using force due to WMD and critisizing his lack of force used in the search for WMD. This can't be.

Could it be that Bush and his cabinet have neglected the real threat to national security in order to make Saddam the problem. I have a number of family members involved with law enforcement. Did you know that many police departments have stopped their terrorist surveillance programs for lack of federal funds? The federal government basically screwed local police departments out of monies promised to fight terrorism. As a result, the programs have no funding so they have been abandoned...and the cities have eaten the bill. Suspected terrorists that were once under scrutiny are now running free in the wilds of America. Now that's leadership Mr. Bush! This is exactly the kind of thing I expect from a Bush.

Edit: Perhaps we needed the anti-terror monies to pay for the Bush tax cut.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
OK help me out here. I have posted references, the most significant one being directly from the US embassy website. Why do you think that a president can abuse military power at a whim? I agree that the use of military power is a complicated issue; one about which I don't claim to be an expert. But I also know that this country is not supposed to operate as a military dictatorship. Before we go around in any more circles, why don't you post some legal evidence, such as a constitutional amendment, that would give the president unregulated use of military power? The Bush spokesman made it pretty clear I thought that "a threat to national security" was the justification.

Your references didn't say anything at all about the legal issues here. Maybe you should take a look at the thread on the War Powers Act - we discussed it in detail. The War Powers Act is the only applicable law here - and its unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the power to interpret the constitution: only the supreme court does. But again, much more detail in the other thread.

Besides, even if he had the legal authority, a fraud perpetrated on the United States government is still a crime. So, he could be charged for the lie, in spite of the war.

Thats a contradiction. If he had the legal authority, how can there be a fraud?

And for the record - my posts are getting shorter.

oops, found more issues:

If this war was based on a lie, then what should the penalty be for 30,000 deaths?

Those 30,000 hypothetical deaths must be taken in the context of the millions (I'v heard around 2 million) that have died in the past 10 years in Iraq due to the brutality of Saddam's regime. Do some quick math on how long it takes to kill 30,000 at a rate of 2 million every 10 years and that will tell you how quickly the net result was SAVING lives.

It is American strength in the Middle East that creates all of the hate that motivate terrorist in the first place.

Quite simply not true. Thats one of Bin Laden's justifications (American troops in Saudia Arabia specifically) but if you remember anything before 1990, you know that terrorism was alive and well for DECADES before the first Gulf War. They hate us first and foremost for who we are and what we believe in.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Your references didn't say anything at all about the legal issues here. Maybe you should take a look at the thread on the War Powers Act - we discussed it in detail. The War Powers Act is the only applicable law here - and its unconstitutional because Congress doesn't have the power to interpret the constitution: only the supreme court does. But again, much more detail in the other thread.

I will look. However, I know that it is said that the president can send in troops of limited numbers, for a limited period of time, without the consent of Congress.

Thats a contradiction. If he had the legal authority, how can there be a fraud?

You guys are killing me here. It is a crime to present false information to Congress...even if it's Bush. Even if he had the legal authority to send the troops, if false information was presented to Congress, even if only for political gain, it is still a crime. You may remember that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about doinking; not even a close second in seriousness as compared to lying about a war.

oops, found more issues: Those 30,000 hypothetical deaths must be taken in the context of the millions (I'v heard around 2 million) that have died in the past 10 years in Iraq due to the brutality of Saddam's regime. Do some quick math on how long it takes to kill 30,000 at a rate of 2 million every 10 years and that will tell you how quickly the net result was SAVING lives. Quite simply not true. Thats one of Bin Laden's justifications (American troops in Saudia Arabia specifically) but if you remember anything before 1990, you know that terrorism was alive and well for DECADES before the first Gulf War. They hate us first and foremost for who we are and what we believe in.

I agree that many now hate us for who we are. This is what Bush senior and his oil buddies, and the military industrial complex in general have brought upon us with fifty years of abusive policies. Nearly any Arab or Persian will tell you about decades of abuse by and for United State's interests. For decades the Middle East has seen US stamped weapons destroy their homes and lives. In part, this is due to our support of Israel, but mainly it results from our oil interests. If you doubt this, then note that Jimmy Carter is the only president besides Truman who has authorized the use of Nuclear Arms. The Soviets were poised for a sweep across the Middle East and we didn't have the conventional weapons in place to stop them. In order to protect our oil interests, he approved the Nukes. Luckily, the invasion never happened.

Next, that Saddam is/was a real bad guy is not argued. The question is did our President lie about national security issues to further a hidden agenda. If he lied to gain public support, then perhaps it is because most people would not have agreed with the invasion otherwise. Also, this is not the reason for going in. I will have to review your War Powers Act discussion before commenting further here. I suggest you review the history of the US in the Middle East going much further back. You comment indicates to me that you are younger than I, and that you don't know about all of our escapades in the Middle East. For example, during the Iran/Iraq war, we sold arms to Iran, the counter-measures to Iraq, the counter-counter measures to Iran and so on. Is it any wonder that we are so hated? Of course, now, the young Middle Eastern people don't even need a reason to hate us; we have inspired hatred for so long that is comes automatically. For this reason, we now have no choice but to defend ourselves. The hatred cannot be undone. I think this is an exactly what Eisenhower was warning us about in his final State of the Union address.
.

 

[Turtle]

Pres.Bush is a liar and deserves to rot in hell.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It is a crime to present false information to Congress...even if it's Bush. Even if he had the legal authority to send the troops, if false information was presented to Congress, even if only for political gain, it is still a crime. You may remember that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about doinking; not even a close second in seriousness as compared to lying about a war.

Clinton lied in court testimony under judicial oath. Not the same thing. If a president could be removed for lying to Congress, every president we ever had would have been impeached and removed. Now if there is a criminal investigation and Bush is called to testify, THEN it would be the same thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton lied in court testimony under judicial oath. Not the same thing. If a president could be removed for lying to Congress, every president we ever had would have been impeached and removed. Now if there is a criminal investigation and Bush is called to testify, THEN it would be the same thing.

I didn't say it's the same thing; I said that it would be a crime:

United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.


Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States
(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme
or artifice with the intent -
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall,subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section,

shall be fined not more than 1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

 

[russ_watters]

You seem to be implying that any lie by anyone on the floor of Congress is fraud. Are you really?? Have you thought about the implications of that assertion? Like how many people could have been tried for fraud? Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

That law is nowhere near that broad.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You seem to be implying that any lie by anyone on the floor of Congress is fraud. Are you really?? Have you thought about the implications of that assertion? Like how many people could have been tried for fraud? Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

That law is nowhere near that broad.

I quoted exactly, the law. It is just as broad as it says. I implied nothing.

 

[FZ+]

Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

That doesn't mean that congressmen should be allowed to lie regularly. In fact, it's rather disturbing. Where did you get that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
That doesn't mean that congressmen should be allowed to lie regularly. In fact, it's rather disturbing. Where did you get that?

IMHO, we have a failure to understand the difference between politics and fraud. I feel that a certain amount of funny business in Congress is generally tolerated as a part of "the art of what's possible", however, if caught in a significant lie, bad things happen to politicians. We have seen this again and again in US politics; so much so I can hardly remember half of the scandals of the last 30 years.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Congressmen lie on a daily basis from that floor.

I dare you to find one that's not a Republican!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I quoted exactly, the law. It is just as broad as it says. I implied nothing.

Well in that case, do you think that pretty much every politician who ever lived has comitted fraud under that definition? And if so, should they all have been jailed?

We have seen this again and again in US politics; so much so I can hardly remember half of the scandals of the last 30 years.

And exactly how many of them have ended up in jail.

I dare you to find one that's not a Republican!

You're not serious, are you?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well in that case, do you think that pretty much every politician who ever lived has comitted fraud under that definition? And if so, should they all have been jailed? And exactly how many of them have ended up in jail.

I would agree that this scenario is extremely unlikely. Even in a worst case for Bush, the most likely results of a scandal would normally be that he not run again. Unfortunately, I doubt this will be resolved in time. If he did intentionally lead the country into war on false pretenses, and if it can be shown that his actions actually constitute an intentional fraud, then few scandals in U.S. history would even come close in significance. Of course, this would probably require that at least one of his closest advisors turn on him, this also seems unlikely. Even if guilty to the highest degree, I am quite sure that others would take the heat for Bush. The Republicans have too much at stake.

But, russ, you seem to argue against a constitutional government. Are you a just a cynic, or do you like Bush that much? You seem to argue that any lie of any significance should be OK. Given the worst potential scenario here, how much worse can a presidential lie get? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Zero]

Bush can get away with anything, because he has the media in his pocket, and he is willing to lie constantly. Other people would tell a single lie and try to make it work; Bush tells multiple contradictory lies, and somehow gets a relatively free ride out of the media and Congress.