Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

I think you make some interesting points but I'm going to take issue over a few things

Ocean Breeze said:
re: the line from the movie. Sounds like propaganda. following the bush line.

The critics of the war would be more credible if they understood that there genuinely, truly are some people in Iraq who are better off. To label anyone who thinks otherwise as "Bush propoganda" devalues the argument.

Ocean Breeze said:
btw: I have a very good understanding of how the US mind works. and how they can manipulate themselves into believing what they want to believe and minimizing what they consider unimportant. ....while emphasizing what is in their favor or suits them.

You don't have a good understanding how the American mind works. You have a good understanding of how the human mind works. All nations have their myths. For example, Canadians think they are tolerant, and they are, but the Quebecois probably think that English Canadians aren't as tolerant as English Canadians like to believe. Individuals emphasize the positive. They don't like to believe that they or their group or their nation do bad things. Its always the other guy. "We" do good things. "They" do bad things.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
RE: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

toro......good points. what we don't know is, how much better off the Iraqis are...and will be. But if one goes with the premise that anything is better than before.....yes, they are better off. (albeit a generalization)

PS. ( as half of my own family is American......believe me, I do have a pretty good understanding how they think. ;-) I also know that it all depends on which position one is coming from and if one restricts oneself to one position only, without flexiblity of thought /consideration of the "other persons" point of view.

The thing is that it is crucial to stay away from generalizations.......as All Americans are not the same, All Canadians are not the same etc etc. One cannot categorize nations or people into cute little boxes , put a labek on them , and then use that label as if it is a given .

And I do think the line from the movie is a bit of a "pitch" .....a pitch that has worked for many. The issue is that the Iraqis ARE "free" from the SH regime.....but they are not independant as a nation as long as the US is in there. Maybe they don't want independance....and if this is the case......then that is their choice . It is their choice that matters most now. (IMHO)


Just as the Americans CHOSE bush as their leader. That means he is what they want in a leader. By voting for him, they "hired" him to do a very responsible job.

but it do give one pause , as to why they would want someone so ineffectual as a person, someone so controlling, aggressive , uncompromising , and one that has no ethical /moral standards.

(personally, I would not hire him to mow my lawn......as I could not trust him not to steal the garden furniture.;-) But hey, that's just me:) Credentials are important for any job. as is employment history.

Ya see, IF bush had not spun the yarn about WMD ( gosh, remember how he EMPHASIZED that and with such CERTAINTY??) and had been more honest.....it might be an entirely different situation now.
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
RE: Is Lying About The Re

And if Nader hadn't run in 2000, it certainly would be a different situation now. It was certainly his right to do so, but the outcome was that Bush was in elected.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

Toro: you figure that Nader in the last election had that kind of impact?? Hmm. You could have a point. Thanks.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

It could be, but I don't think Americans are against the war enough to take it to that level, despite finding out the truth. I mean, there haven't really been any large protests. Much of the truth came out before the last election and Bush still won.

Grounds for impeachment:

In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office
Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office
Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain

In truth though, lying is an impeachable offense, if you look at the 11 articles of impeachment against Pres. Clinton, most were about lying.

1.President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones's attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (i) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (ii) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President's purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship; (iii) Ms. Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (iv) the President used Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (v) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case.

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky's involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President's false statements to the grand jury -- and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (i) lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (ii) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (iii) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (iv) invoking Executive Privilege; (v) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (vi) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 -- all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

He gets away with claiming "bad intelligence". Now if they were to declassify certain documents, perhaps it would shed some light on the matter.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

I think not said:
He gets away with claiming "bad intelligence". Now if they were to declassify certain documents, perhaps it would shed some light on the matter.


scapegoating isn't it??? It is quite disturbing to hear him blame "intelligence" , the one area he relies on so much. (or should)

Mind you , I personally don't think it was "intelligence" failure at all

He is just shifting responsibility to anyone but himself.


Agree, If more data was made public , "we" would have a better chance to assess for ourselves. Of course, bush will use the excuse of "security reasons" as the blanket "rationale" to withhold info. A LOT Of secrecy in the current administration.
 

Toro

Senate Member
May 24, 2005
5,468
109
63
Florida, Hurricane Central
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

Ocean Breeze said:
Toro: you figure that Nader in the last election had that kind of impact?? Hmm. You could have a point. Thanks.

Bush won by 500 votes in Florida and Nader polled 60,000. Gore would have won Florida if Nader hadn't run. Of course, if he'd just won his own state - Tennessee - he also would have won.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

Toro said:
Ocean Breeze said:
Toro: you figure that Nader in the last election had that kind of impact?? Hmm. You could have a point. Thanks.

Bush won by 500 votes in Florida and Nader polled 60,000. Gore would have won Florida if Nader hadn't run. Of course, if he'd just won his own state - Tennessee - he also would have won.

If Gore tried to turn his head to the left, his neck would snap. Thats how stiff he was.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

I think not said:
If Gore tried to turn his head to the left, his neck would snap. Thats how stiff he was.

My my. You could've elected Gore even if he was stiff in the neck. Hey, you elected Clinton and he was stiff somewhere else. :wink:
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

I think not said:
If Gore tried to turn his head to the left, his neck would snap. Thats how stiff he was.

My my. You could've elected Gore even if he was stiff in the neck. Hey, you elected Clinton and he was stiff somewhere else. :wink:
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
RE: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

sorry for the double post. My fingres were getting STIFF.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

Toro said:
Bush won by 500 votes in Florida and Nader polled 60,000. Gore would have won Florida if Nader hadn't run. Of course, if he'd just won his own state - Tennessee - he also would have won.

So many conditional statement! Doesn't it torment you about all the possibilities?

If Nader hadn't run?
If it wasn't for l'argent et pour le vote ethnique
If Hitler didn't invade Russia in the winter
If kruschev hadn't of backed off and removed the missiles from Cuba

Most importantly what if Kerry Fraser had called that blatant Gretzky high stick on Doug Gilmour in Game six of the conference finals! :)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

excerpt from a rather well appointed article:
No one is above the law — guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution especially included an impeachment clause for high officers who violate the principles of the Constitution as stated in Article II Section 4 —

“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Alexander Hamilton asserted that an impeachment was warranted for "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust… as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." And James Madison at Virginia’s ratification convention stated: “A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

As fact after fact come forth revealing the truths of the Iraq War and a democracy turning into a tyranny behind the mask of wartime necessity, President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney have continuously abused their powers, abused public trust, and violated the constitutional principles in an attempt to subvert the Constitution. The American people and the Congress can now hold the President and the Vice President accountable for their misconduct and unconstitutional actions against the United States of America.

Besides violating the Presidential Oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (Article II Section 1) and violating his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Article II Section 3), George W. Bush along with Richard Cheney stand to be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and for violating the following Articles and Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution:

manipulated intelligence and media so as to allege falsely a national security threat posed by Iraq

— provided a forged document dated October 2000, describing the sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger to the International Atomic Energy Commission and used that sale in the State of the Union Address


(TRUTH: CIA claimed that Bush knew beforehand that the document was bogus.)


— justified war against Iraq by providing false information, including weapons of mass destruction (WMD)


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." – Bush’s Address to the Nation (March 17, 2003)

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." – Cheney’s Speech at Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention (August 26, 2002)


(TRUTH: No WMD)


— misled the nation to believe Iraq was linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11th by Al-Qaeda

"He (Saddam Hussein) was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like Al-Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections — not only Al-Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations." – Bush (New York Times 6-18-2004)


“If we’re successful in Iraq…we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under the assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” – Cheney (Meet The Press 9-14-2003)


(TRUTH: Commission Investigation Report on Sept. 11 terrorist attacks found no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorists. The only relationship was that Al-Qaeda contacted Iraq for support but was rejected. Al-Qaeda terrorists didn’t operate in Iraq until after the invasion by the U.S. military forces.)

deceived the Congress on the rationale for a war of aggression against Iraq and miscarried the action of the Congress
(Violation of the Federal Anti-conspiracy Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001)

— submitted a false report and a letter (March 18, 2003) to the United States Congress on the reasons for launching a ‘pre-emptive attack’ on Iraq (Downing Street Memo, dated July 23, 2002, revealed that by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to launch a war against Iraq with the justification of terrorism and WMD based on ‘fixed’ facts and intelligence.)


(Violation of Article 1 Section 8)

(TRUTH: The Oct. 2002 resolution passed by the Congress gave Bush the authority “to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States….” The resolution never granted the president authority to declare war on Iraq. In fact, only Congress can declare war for the United States.)

(Violation of Article II Section 3)

— shifted money allocated by Congress for the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. (President can only execute the laws passed by Congress.)


ignoring the executive duty to protect the American citizens and the country

— failed as leaders in their dereliction of duty in preventing September 11 terrorist attacks

(Commission Investigation Report on September 11 terrorist attacks noted that Bush Administration received heightened warnings of possible terrorist attacks in the summer of 2001 and a presidential daily briefing (August 6, 2001 – a month before the September 11) regarding an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil.)


(Violation of Bill of Rights: Fifth Amendment)

— denying the citizen’s constitutional rights for a fair trial

(Confining American citizens without charges and denying their fundamental rights for due process of law.)


— diverting military resources from pursuing known terrorists in Afghanistan

(As the Commander-in-Chief, Bush diverted military resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. Instead of conducting an all-out effort in pursuing known terrorists, such as Osama Bin Laden who have repeatedly attacked the United States of America, the U.S. military forces were diverted to invade and occupy Iraq. To this day, Osama Bin Laden remains at large and still a threat.)


waging an illegal war in Iraq

(Violation of Article VI)

— defied the decisions of the United Nations against attacking Iraq is a violation of the UN Charter

(Violation of Article VI)

— committing a war of aggression is a violation of the Nuremberg Charter

(killing and injuring hundred thousands of civilians)


(TRUTH: By violating the International Laws that the U.S. agreed to by treaty, Bush has violated the “supreme Law of the Land.”)

(Violation of Article VI and Article III Section 3)

— authorizing the use of torture on detainees in prison camps, such as the infamous Iraq's Abu Ghraib and Cuba's Guantanamo Bay

(As the Commander-in-Chief, Bush is accountable for the U.S. military personnel in violating the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution against torture ratified in 1994.)

(TRUTH: Since Bush’s declaration of “Mission Accomplished” at the end of Iraq war two years ago, the deaths and injuries of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis continue to climb every day. Despite a newly established Iraqi government, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear.)


In the last thirty-one years, considering the two previous presidential impeachments — Richard Nixon charged for obstructing justice, abuse of powers, and unlawful refusal to supply material subpoenaed by the House of Representatives; Bill Clinton charged for perjury and obstruction of justice — George Bush certainly warrants an impeachment not only for his lengthy list but also for the severity of the impeachable offenses.


Although Cheney keeps a low profile, he has worked behind the scenes as one of the most powerful vice presidents, regarded as a driving force behind the Iraq war and the Bush administration’s energy policy, according to the White House insiders. He withheld the details of his energy task force meetings with energy industry leaders to help formulate the administration’s national energy policy. He denied that he played any role in awarding a billion-dollar business contract to Halliburton, where Cheney was chief executive from 1995 to 2000. He has shaped the administration's strategy in the war on terrorism. Undoubtedly, Cheney's shadow looms larger than Bush's presence in the Oval Office.


Along with their own 2004 and 2000 elections under the suspicion of fraud, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney at the helm of the administration, have led this nation to an illegal and ongoing war, economic disaster, environmental decline, and international disgrace.

It's time for the American people to speak out. It's time for the Congress to do their duty. It’s time for the American people, through the representatives of the Congress, to impeach the President and the Vice President of the United States.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
Re: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

another valuable perspective.:

What America Must Do Now
Dr. Sam Hamod


June 10, 2005

Truthfully, there is so much that America must do to repair its democracy and its name in the world that it’s hard to know where to start. But, I’ll give it a try and just make a few suggestions.

1. Pull our troops out of Muslim countries in order to make clear that we do not have a war against Islam. Until we do this, 90% or more of the Muslims in the world will continue to believe that America is making war on Islam at the behest of Israel and other interests that are detrimental to Islam and the world’s Muslims. One has only to see the number of Muslims being detained in the world and in American prisons and you can see how Muslims see America’s behavior in the world. Also, tear down the Israel wall for starters.

2. We must quit trying to follow the Bush doctrine of “continuous war” on the rest of the world. America will never be able to conquer the whole world, and it’s time it quit trying. Bush hasn’t yet realized this because he keeps listening to the senile Dick Cheney and the ambitious Zionist, Paul Wolfowitz and the ignorant Donald Rumsfeld. Remember, to show how ignorant Rumsfeld is, one has but to look at his recent comments about China to a joint committee of the Congress, when he said, “We hope China will join the civilized world and …” Donald, do you realize that China is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, one of the greatest and we are but a recent upstart. Cheny and Wolfowitz’ ignorance is shown because they both told the U.S. media that the Iraqis would greet the American troops “with flowers and cheers.” Obviously, they were, and are, living in La La Land.

3. America must get its house in order and quit farming jobs out to alleged American corporations like Halliburton and others who have their headquarters offshore, pay few taxes if any, and who couldn’t care less about America or its workers. Add to this, that America must treat its workers better; if not, then our whole economy will crash like a house of cards (that may happen anyway because of the Fed printing money, with the help of the U.S. Government, that is basically worthless paper.)

4. America must once again value truth, honesty and courage. Bill Clinton was a bigger liar and charlatan than Dick Nixon, yet he never was put out of office; GW Bush is even worse, and has committed more impeachable offenses than any president in American history, yet he remains in office. It is clear that the American media and the American people no longer value truth, honesty or courage—they prefer blowhards, liars and men who show bravado but not real courage—i.e., Clinton, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Ashcroft, Bremer and the rest of the ilk.

I could go on, but this is enough for the night.

Best wishes.


Dr. Sam Hamod, June 10, 2005

Hamod is an expert on world affairs

the question remains: Does the US have the real courage to attend to this or will it continue to see"courage" as agressive conduct via their "almighty" military. ?
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
RE: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

Very nice article.

The writer points out exactly what must be done by the USG for the Muslim world to start trusting them. However, Bush said minutes after the 9/11 that this is a CRUSADE. Either he used the wrong word or he is actually on a crusade against Muslims. I'll go for the latter since his God is telling him that Muslims are badddddddd.
His God is telling him that Muslims sit on most of the world oil. His God is telling him "My name is Ariel Sharon" and your mission is to protect the people of Israel at any cost.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,397
94
48
Re: RE: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Off

moghrabi said:
Very nice article.

The writer points out exactly what must be done by the USG for the Muslim world to start trusting them. However, Bush said minutes after the 9/11 that this is a CRUSADE. Either he used the wrong word or he is actually on a crusade against Muslims. I'll go for the latter since his God is telling him that Muslims are badddddddd.
His God is telling him that Muslims sit on most of the world oil. His God is telling him "My name is Ariel Sharon" and your mission is to protect the people of Israel at any cost.


don't think there is anything that can change bush's ideological beliefs. He fosters the prejudice the US constitution opposes.

( Bush and his delusions/hallucinations should either be in prison or on a psych ward.......for "indefinate" care and supervision.)
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
RE: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense

I like to see him hanged by his DICK Cheney.