Should President Bush Have Been Impeached?

[Flyndaran]

Clinton bombed Iraq.

So, Clinton was impeached for perjury. Should we also ask if he should be impeached for war crimes?

Clinton didn't lie. I hate how republicans get to rewrite history.
Clinton weasled his way out, but did not technically lie under oath.

As to Bush jr., how much willful ignorance should we accept in our president? That's what that jesus freak did. He hired only yes men, and refused to listen to anyone or anything that didn't say what he wanted.
Unless we accept him as borderline retarded, which I don't, then he is absolutely responsible for an illegal war and over half a million innocent deaths.

[crashhelmet]

I think the difference between what Clinton did and what Bush 43 did was that Clinton attacked strategic targets and had full UN support. Bush 43 invaded the country with minimal to no UN support at all.

The problem with impeaching Bush 43 was that there was nothing that could really be linked to him. He was the King of Plausible Deniability. Oh, that didn't happen or wasn't really there? Well so and so said it was. I'll make him the scapegoat so the blame isn't put on me.

no evidence has come up that says that he knew there was nothing, was told there was nothing, and then went ahead with it anyway. A middleman change the "facts" somewhere.

CH

[Fashion Lad!]

Clinton didn't lie. I hate how republicans get to rewrite history.
Clinton weasled his way out, but did not technically lie under oath.

Clinton DID lie under oath.

This directly outlines why he should have been impeached.

Now, do I agree that he should've gone to trial for an extramarital affair? Absolutely not. However, he did, he lied under oath.

Bush has not been put under oath, so if he did lie it wasn't illegal.. He was given information, he gave that information to Congress. Congress voted for the war.

[crashhelmet]

We don't know if Bush or any of his staff ever lied under oath. They hid behind Executive Privilege until they were guaranteed complete confidentiality with anything and everything they said. It was all behind locked doors and the transcripts were immediately locked away, if not destroyed.

As for Clinton, he didn't perjure himself and the more I read through that transcript, as Flyndaran pointed out, he never lied. He's a lawyer and a politician. He did what lawyers and politicians do best. He spun it. They defined "Sexual Relations" he gave his definition of "sexual relations" and they never called him on anything more. Blame the prosecutors, not him. All they had to do was ask "Did she ever perform fellatio on you?" but they didn't.

The Starr Report notes one of the things he perjured himself about was the gifts he gave. The transcripts say what he remembers and what he doesn't remember giving. He never denied giving a gift, only that he didn't remember. No one seemed to have a problem with Reagan when he couldn't remember anything about the Iran Contra Scandal.

The Clinton case was nothing more than a gross attempt to discredit him and remove him from the Presidency. Ken Starr started with the Whitewater scandal, then went after his extra-marital affairs and anything else he could find until he got lucky with this one. It's why they couldn't convict him and kick him out of office after he was impeached. They didn't have a leg to stand on.

CH

[Fashion Lad!]

He spun it.

So, he lied. To spin an answer is to lie.

Bush never testified under oath. He never gave testimony. That's fact. It'd be like me asking you questions. You could lie all day long and I couldn't do anything to you. Lying isn't against the law.

[Flyndaran]

Clinton DID lie under oath.

This directly outlines why he should have been impeached.

Now, do I agree that he should've gone to trial for an extramarital affair? Absolutely not. However, he did, he lied under oath.

Bush has not been put under oath, so if he did lie it wasn't illegal.. He was given information, he gave that information to Congress. Congress voted for the war.

Where in that long excerpt did he specifically lie?
Last I heard he weaseled out by hiding behind the definition of present tense is rather than the past tense the questioner meant.
Honestly, I don't give a crap if someone lies to inappropriate questions. It sure as hell isn't in the same ballpark as murdering over half a million civilians in an illegal war, and torturing people!

[BroomJockey]

So, he lied. To spin an answer is to lie.

No, it isn't. To think that is so shows a fundamental fracture in knowledge of what "spin" is. Spin is only useful when it is specifically NOT a lie. You don't say you were laid off at work, you say you received more leisure time. It's technically true, but it's a hell of a way to look at it.

Or to quote a great man: "What I told you was true, from a certain point of view."

[Fashion Lad!]

No, it isn't. To think that is so shows a fundamental fracture in knowledge of what "spin" is. Spin is only useful when it is specifically NOT a lie. You don't say you were laid off at work, you say you received more leisure time. It's technically true, but it's a hell of a way to look at it.

Or to quote a great man: "What I told you was true, from a certain point of view."

Yes it is. You're intending to deceive the true reason behind your leisure time. You're misleading the true reason. A lie doesn't have to be of false information. But it does need the intention of deceiving.

[Rapscallion]

Are you talking about the definition of 'spin' or 'lie' now?

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

A lie doesn't have to be of false information.

Yes it does. Either by commission or omission, but there still needs to be false information.

A lie of commission would be me telling you an untruth.

A lie of omission would be me letting you believe something untrue when I could have dispelled it.

Spin is the act of putting a positive bent on a negative event. My example? Still true. A loss of a job would result in greater amounts of available leisure time. I'm not leading you to believe that I somehow still have a job, either by saying "I still have a job" or letting you think that I somehow squeeze in 30 hours of writing around my 40 hour a week job, and everything else I need to do.

So yes, for you to continue to believe that spin=lie shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what spin entails.

[Fashion Lad!]

No it doesn't. If you tell someone the truth but believe it to be a lie, that's a lie.

Bottom line, Bush didn't lie under oath. He did not start an illegal war, congress did. And even if Bush were impeached, he could still act as President. Impeach means to hold for trial.

If you were to tell someone that your company gave you more leisure time, and I were to later find out they fired your ass. I'd consider you to be a liar.

[Flyndaran]

No it doesn't. If you tell someone the truth but believe it to be a lie, that's a lie.

Bottom line, Bush didn't lie under oath. He did not start an illegal war, congress did. And even if Bush were impeached, he could still act as President. Impeach means to hold for trial.

If you were to tell someone that your company gave you more leisure time, and I were to later find out they fired your ass. I'd consider you to be a liar.

Congress funded the war on lies Bush told.
There is plenty of guilt to go around.

For many decades now, the President has the power to start wars.
It's called executive creep when powers normally given to one branch creep over to the executive.

[Fashion Lad!]

For many decades now, the President has the power to start wars.
It's called executive creep when powers normally given to one branch creep over to the executive.

No, that would be illegal.

Congress was given the exact same information as the President. The President made a case for going into war with Iraq and Congress said, "Ok" and that was it.

[Flyndaran]

No, that would be illegal.

Congress was given the exact same information as the President. The President made a case for going into war with Iraq and Congress said, "Ok" and that was it.

Congress was only given information vetted by the chicken-hawks of the Bush administration. They actually had the stupidity to think Bush wouldn't lie through his teeth. BOY were they wrong. They kept saying that they had proof, but security meant that congress wasn't allowed to look at this non-existant stuff.

[Fashion Lad!]

Congress was only given information vetted by the chicken-hawks of the Bush administration.

No.

No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none. So Dean's claim that intelligence was "corrupted" is unsupported.

Factcheck.org The quote is actually the link if you're so inclined.

This is in there too, in case you're no so inclined.

Senate Intelligence Committee: The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.” (p273)

And more

Silberman-Robb Report: These (intelligence) errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

Emphasis is theirs...

Just remember, lying isn't against the law. Perjury is. Impeachment is to hold for trial. You go to trial if you break the law or to determine if you broke the law. If a politician gets on TV and says something to the public that is determined to not be true, that is not against the law. It's against good moral judgment though.