Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

The Dems will cry foul, the Republicans will rally, and ultimately there won't be enough concrete proof to lead to an impeachment, or even a resignation.

Perhaps, so that means it shouldn't be persued? If wrongs have been commited, should not an investigation occur?

What I'm saying is it's relatively unprecedented for so many intel types to come forward and admit that they were pressured by administration officials, etc. Its not a case of one random crusader ala Dan Ellsberg taking a stand. It's the whole of the agencies. Its they who will be the thorn in Dubyas side because I don't think they are so eager to take the blame again.

I don't think you can just sit back and allow the agencies within the in-question administration to serve as a check upon itself. There must be an exterior, autonomous, bi-partisan investigation.

Originally Posted by an ignorant baboon

Did not Tom Daschle sit there on capital hill back in 98 and talk about the threat that Iraq is against us? Did Clinton not talk about that as well?

Let me give you a refresher course, Vince. In 1998, Scott Ritter was still the top UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He went before the Senate, and told them all that Iraq had not come in compliance for disarming.

The reason he did this, and the reason he to this day stands by that stance, is that the guidelines he had set before him was a complete 100% Iraqi disarmament. Although he could atest that most of what Iraq had was gone, he couldn't prove it was all gone (particularly any kinds of chem. weapons). So, with that said, lets assume they still had anthrax, which they admitted to having. Anthrax has a shelf life, in IDEAL storage conditions, of no more than two years (that's a generous guess, to my recollection). Now, our teams in there now, as well as the UN teams, inspected these places. Not only have they not found anything, but they have also learned that these facilities were far from "ideal." (Don't even go to the "moving van chem. lab" farce).

In 1998, when Clinton enacted Desert Fox, he in fact had the UN team pulled out of Iraq so he could bomb the country. If Clinton and Daschle were so concerned, why would Clinton indefintely pull out the inspection team???

Other countries agreed as well, such as France and Germany and Britian and Italy. We had just as much if not one or two more countries that agreed with us this time that Saddam had WMD.

When did they agree? What time period are we talking about? What did these countries agree Iraq had? Furthermore, since when do you care about the opinions of Tom Daschle, Bill Clinton, Germany, and France??? Way to be consistent, clambake.

And do you really think that Saddam would leave that shit in the open? That he wouldn't hide the weapons as soon as he knew some shit was up? You would probably let Ted Bundy go too if he got rid of all the bodies but everyone had a multitude of other evidence.

But we found his victims, didn't we? And until we did, he benefited from a presumed innocence, up until his guilt was proven. If there had been one investigation that turned up nothing, maybe he would've gone free. Then a second one? Nothing? Wait, wait, ok, a THIRD investigation. Nothing? Did thjis guy REALLY do what he has been accused of??

Bundy was proven guilty. Saddam has not been proven guilty of these crimes.

Kev, get back to your position in life: Sucking my cock.

You're certainly entitled to your homoerotic fantasies, but I'm getting pretty damn tired of holding your hand through these threads. Try to keep up next time, ok??