KRT Wire

The hearing is also available on CSPAN

Questions for Debate:

1. Did you watch the hearings or only read about them?

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?

3. What is the strongest evidence for impeachment and why (if there is any evidence, in your opinion)?

It's also being rebroadcast on CSPAN-2 this evening at 8pm EST.

I set the Tivo for c-span2 but haven't seen it yet. I simply can't wait. They had a PRETEND impeachment hearing. That is so cool. I love Conyers.

Washington Post

The problem with Conyers, his letter and his hearings is that they play to the freaky leftists, the professional protesters and democratic underground folks. This is not the best way for him to establish credibility. I mean, at the democrats.com event they were handing out flyers repeating the myth that 4000 Jews stayed home on 9/11, and profited by insider trading. The real democrats would do well to disavow these guys.

Also, perhaps Conyers should study the British (vs. American) usage of the word "fixed" before he plays "chairman" at his next mock trial. When you read his smoking gun memo, you note that not one Brit in the room freaked out when this phrase was use, because they all understood it meant "framing the issue" vs. "creating facts."

I wouldn't count on an impeachment, but I welcome more of this type of theater in Washington. I can't wait to get home and watch this.

You are quite utterly wrong on this point. The verb "fix", is descended from the Indo-European word "dheigh", which described manipulations with the fingers. Indeed, "finger" descends from the same word. The core meaning of "fix" is best demonstrated in such terms as "affix", "fixation", "fixity", "fixture", "transfixed", and so forth. The word means "firmly positioning an object to a specific location. This is also the basis of the usage, "get a fix" on a location. Hence, to "fix the intelligence and facts around the policy" is to establish the policy as the central location and then reposition the intelligence and the facts to that location. This clearly indicates an intention to alter (by means of repositioning) the intelligence and the facts to comport with the policy.

Very impressive. I'm adding etymology to your already-long CV. Thusly informed, I ask a hypothetical question.

If I reposition my Chesterfield alongside my end-table, "fixing" both items around my oriental rug to "comport" with my décor, would that make me a liar? Would I have altered the rug by "fixing" things around it, or would it still be the same rug?

I finally watched this mock trial video and it was surreal. I kept waiting for "Mr. Chairman" Conyers to yell Off with his head!

No. If, however, you later claimed that the positioning of the furniture was independent of the position of the rug, then you would be untruthful. It would also be untruthful to claim that the rug was positioned on the floor to comport with the furniture.

1. Did you watch the hearings or only read about them?

So far, I have only seen the equivilent of a "trailer" for them/

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?

As Newt Gingrich said- Impeachment is more about political will than actual wrongdoing- there is mountains of evidence, but no political will. It is so funny to me, the very poeple that scorn things like "what the definition of is, is" , in this debate are very willing to go to "what the meaning of "fix" is - as usual, the poeple yelling about "morality" have none, and their "superior moral values" only applies to others, outside thier political gods. I mean realy, you were all too willing to go on an 88 million dollar fishing experiment to find out about some consensual sex, but all to willing to defend a guy that has plainly decieved the american public over and over- for what? Because you don't like gay marriage? For all the conservatives crying about "moral relativism" - they sure seem to be the greatest players in that field!

You (meaning the conservatives of this country) are absolutely unwilling to hold GW to the same standards you held Clinton too- if you (if you label yourself a conservative in this country) are not willing to call for investigations and special prosecutors for GW, but were for Clinton, you (the conservatives in this country) are just another sleazy hypocrite in the end.

3. What is the strongest evidence for impeachment and why (if there is any evidence, in your opinion)?

OH lord, where to begin? Well, duh, the downing street memo? Funeral gate? Lying to congress about the price of the medicaid drug bill? Outing a secret agent to get even?


This just in- fixed means the same dang thing according to British sources- I guess "IS" probably means the same thing as well?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...9ltdun.asp?pg=2

Check and mate.

1. I have read about this issue and also heard the ranting on "Air America". The memo has been bandied about by the far left as "proof" that Bush lied about the war in Iraq. That assertion is ludicrous.

2. Of course not. But, I certainly encourage the democrats to try to do this, preferably prior to next year's mid term elections. An impeachment effort, in conjunction with the debacle of Dean's chairmanship of the DNC, should put a veto/filibuster proof GOP majority into congress and thus absolutely pack the courts (including the USSC) with strict constructionist judges.

3. There is no evidence other than the rabid hatred of the president by his political opponents who conveniently forget that even people like John Kerry were, in the late 1990's, arguing that we may have to invade Iraq in order to stop their WMD programs.

With humble apologies to Jaime, I promise to get on topic after this last try!



2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?
Despite some harmless extramarital consensual sex by our last impeached president, there is no grounds for impeaching Bush. (He certainly didn't lie under oath to a grand jury for instance) All of these memos indicate that Bush was inclined towards regime change (our country's official policy) and was positioning his case accordingly. That's not a crime, that's being the President. Or heck, someone in marketing or advertising or management.

CruisingRam, your rants about morality are not helpful to your argument. (And the name-calling is not appreciated) Despite what you'd call hyprocrisy, there were no Republicans calling for Clinton's impeachment when he launched bombs into Somalia or Bosnia or Iraq or Afghanistan. (not saying I agree or disagree, just trying to find a more apt parallel) Those are policy decisions and we shouldn't go around impeaching our president for them. They tend to make decisions based on the information available at the time, and some do better than others.

But if we in this country started impeaching presidents for policy decisions, nothing would ever get done. You could argue that every president who has ever had a scandal (which would be every president ever) should be impeached. I mean, maybe I think that Bush "lied" when he ran as a Republican and yet he still signs all of these pork-laden national budgets. Or that Clinton lied when he smoked pot himself and then his Justice Department implemented the most oppressive marijuana laws in the history of the USA. But it's not impeachable - what you do is you don't elect the guy (or his party) next time.

No. That's being a war criminal. That's the point.

Regime change in and of itself is illegal. It should be because it works both ways. If Bush declares us an empire (which he has) and decides which kingdoms must be toppled, we've become a legitimate threat to those that oppose us. So, if regime change were legal, any government could attack us and be justified.

Of course, it's easy to say "our military can't be matched", but that's "old America". They don't need to fight our military. They can simply destroy our buildings with us inside them while we let them waltz right through our borders.

But anybody seriously thinking about impeachment needs to back up a step or 15. If you'd like to see someone get impeached, be prepared to cough up half your paycheck in reparations. Because the only thing lower than a terrorist, is a lawyer. An impeachment would make that case and be the only "slam-dunk" we'd ever see regarding this debacle.

The answer to make everyone happy? Cheney needs to resign. Bush didn't lie to the American public (although he's mislead everyone), but Cheney, if you will, clearly did.



Anthony Zinni, the highly decorated war hero who quickly became a disgruntled loser when he spoke out knew this to be false because he was in that loop. Cheney blatantly lied and continues to do so.

If Cheney steps down, I think that would be the biggest happy medium we could find to get accountability so this never happens again and doesn't drive us broke.

And if you want to dispute the term "fixed", then explain the BUT in front of the term as used in that context.

(Emphasis mine)

Regime change is illegal. Period.

No President Bush didn't lie under oath, he simply refused to testify under oath in the first place. With all due respect, there is ample evidence from numerous sources that President Bush did far more than "position his case" toward his inclination. His inclination (minus any evidence) was firmly in place from the beginning. Much of the intel used to build his case was disputed before he used it. Not to mention the deliberate linking of Bin Laden/Saddam/911 in speech after speech. Claims the we "know" Saddam has XY&Z and we "know" where etc... What you call Bush's "inclination", I call his "excuse". What you call "positioning his case", I call distorting and manipulating intel...

We aren't talking about oral sex between consenting adults, we're talking about thousands of dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians and billions of taxpayer dollars that could have been better spent elsewhere, all to fund a war that need never have been fought. We've turned Iraq into our private shooting gallery (better to lure terrorists into someone else's backyard than our) while we tout how we "liberated them", all while Bin Laden still roams free. In my opinion, this is a disgrace that should have been addressed long before now.

I watched the hearings through C-SPAN via the internet. I have to do this since I don't have cable.



As far as I'm concerned, there are clearly grounds for impeachment. They promised to use war as a last resort and the memo clearly shows they were lying to us. They had their minds made up about this from day one and they did not want anything(especially the U.N.) to get in their way. We were never attacked by Iraq and this war was largely unnecessary.



Prob ably the part of the document that relates to the "fixing" of evidence to get the war that they wanted. It clearly shows that they had their own agenda, the public be damned.

1.) I only read about them and recently surfed the news networks to hear all the latest spin. Saw a few balanced seeming interviews with the man who broke the story.

2.) I don't believe that the president can be impeached for anything they have here. He can always play his "unstoppable buck" card and pass the responsibility on to someone below him. (or whip the dead horse named George Tenet)
In order to get some good impeachment material out of him they would have to put him before a grand jury and trick him into lying about his understanding of the situation involving the inteligence and his plans for war. Problem is that there is no way, barring a turncoat in his cabinet, of proving he isn't just confused and overwhelmed by it all.

3.) The strongest evidence has been rehashed a hundred times in old threads about Bush's purpose for going to war. (I wish I had this salvo back in those debates). There is a bevy of evidence that our intelligence community considered Iraq to be hardly dangerous as late as 2002. After 9/11 there was a clear and calculated scheme of misinformation about Iraq. There was a pattern of changing rationalizations for going to war, an apology from Colin Powell for his falsified presentation to the U.N. , etc.. This memo is only one more link in a long chain of behaviors that leads any clear thinker to believe that Bush and his people manufactured a cause for war. The one thing that, I think, is hard for moral, conservatives to swallow is the fact that Bush used 9/11 as a tool to start his campaign of misinformation. That seems rather cold and calculating and, to someone who believes in Bush's moral side, likely unbelieveable.

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?
I'd like to address this very carefully. We should not impeach a President merely because he makes a policy mistake. Impeachment should be reserved for serious transgressions. In this case, impeachment would turn on the question of whether Mr. Bush deliberately misled the American people into supporting his war on Iraq. It must not hinge on the enthusiasm of his sales job. Any case for impeachment must be based on outright deceit. Mr. Bush's prior stated intention to invade Iraq does not constitute evidence of deceit.

Do we have such a case? Yes, but it does not consist of a single smoking gun. Rather, it lies in a clear pattern of behavior established by many statements from the administration. The Downing Street Memo is hearsay, and does not by itself constitute evidence sufficient for impeachment. Its role in a case for impeachment is more subtle.

The essence of any such case is founded on the administration's treatment of the WMD issue. Remember, WMD was the declared basis for an "imminent threat" which was used to justify the war. The arguments about Saddam's overall nastiness are irrelevant, because they did not constitute any imminent threat and so offered no justification for invasion. We now know that there were no WMD and that there never was any substantial WMD threat. Moreover, we now know that there never was any solid evidence in favor of WMD. Yet on numerous occasions the Bush administration loudly proclaimed the existence of an imminent threat. Here are some of the relevant quotes:

"In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons." Cheney, 6/20/02

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. " Cheney, 8/26/02

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
Fleischer, 9/06/02

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." Bush, 9/12/02

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have" Bush, 10/5/02

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." Bush, 10/7/02

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." Bush, 10/7/02

"fter eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." Bush 10/7/02

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." Bush, 10/7/02

"Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs." Bolton, 11/1/02

"[Iraq] has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program." Bolton, 11/1/02

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction." Cheney 12/1/02

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. " Fleischer, 12/4/02

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." Fleischer 12/4/02

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Fleischer 1/9/03

"I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that's been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq." Frist, 1/10/03

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. " Bush, 1/28/03

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Bush, 1/28/03

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." Powell, 2/5/03

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction." Powell, 2/5/03

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. " Bush, 2/8/03

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it." Bush, 2/26/03

"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us" Powell, 2/28/03

"Given all of the facts and circumstances known to us, however, I am convinced that if we wait, a threat will continue to materialize in Iraq that could cause incalculable damage to world peace in general, and to the United States in particular." Frist, 3/1/03

"Iraq is a grave threat to this nation. It desires to acquire and use weapons of mass terror and is run by a despot with a proven record of willingness to use them. Iraq has had 12 years to comply with UN requirements for disarmament and has failed to do so. The president is right to say it's time has run out." Frist, 3/7/03

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not." Powell 3/7/03

"Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Cheney 3/16/03

"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, 3/17/03

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." Fleischer 3/21/03

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Franks, 3/22/03

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Rumsfeld 3/30/03

"We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country." Rumsfeld, 4/9/03

This broad collection of statements is what constitutes the evidence for impeachment. We see here an administration repeatedly declaring something that was untruthful, assuring the public that these untruths were correct, and insisting that they provided the justification for a war.

Remember, there was considerable evidence at the time against WMD, and the only evidence in support of WMD was flimsy in the extreme. This, I think, constitutes the basis for a case for impeachment. The Bush administration told the public that there was an imminent threat when the balance of evidence argued against such an imminent threat.

Some have said that, oh well, it was all an honest mistake. But it was most certainly NOT an honest mistake; the Downing Street Memo makes it clear that there was no intention to be honest, that the intelligence and the facts would be distorted to suit the decision to invade. By itself, the Downing Street Memo does not constitute evidence of an impeachable offense. It instead removes the only credible defense against the evidence of an impeachable offense. That is its true significance.

Regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States since Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Discussed in detail on another thread.


I can't believe I'm letting you bait me into this, but here goes. Are you furthermore suggesting that we impeach these people? Seems to be a pattern of lies:
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ..... "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. 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. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Surely you aren't calling for the impeachment of such pillars of Congress as Levin, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards and even Henry Waxman?

(emphasis mine)
I stand corrected. Bush has clearly lied. No matter how you parse the words (I removed quotes where words could be easily parsed, although the intent can hardly be disputed), there is no way Bush could have thought these statements to be true.

There is simply too much corroborating evidence via testimony from ex-cabinet members and minutes from meetings that substantiates the question of legality of this war. Because of this question, there is no way a person could say "no doubt" in any of these statements or state each issue above as fact.

Until now, I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. But no more. He knew the intelligence was thin and needed UN cooperation to invade just because of that. If these statements were truly "facts", he would have not needed to go back to the UN as Blair wanted him to do. After all, we don't need the UN's permission for self-defense.

DR,

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Bush clearly lied. He may have been wrong, but I cannot come to the conclusion that he lied. Heck, that would make me a liar for many of the things I posted on this board over two years ago.

The outgoing administration said the same thing that Bush said. Other governments, including the Brits, French and Russians were saying the same thing. Democrats were saying the same thing. Recall Bob Woodward's book where he quoted George Tenet as insisting that it was a "slam dunk" case?

Obviously the President did not go to Iraq and see these things for himself. He was given information and decided to act upon it. When the leader of the world's intelligence community says Iraq having WMDs is a "slam dunk", then I think the people in charge of policy should listen to that.

The legality of the war against Iraq goes back to the cease fire agreement signed by Iraq after the first Gulf War. The UN declared Iraq to be in "material breach" of that agreement. That being the case, resumption of the war was legal. End of story. It really is that simple as to why the war was legal. Now, whether it was right or not remains to be seen.

As far as the Downing Street memo and its applicability to impeachment, I concur with the opinion in this article: The unremarkable Downing memo

And the point of this observation is....? Of course we've wanted regime change in Iraq, as I'm sure we want it in Iran and North Korea. Having a policy that is pro regime change in entirely different from misleading the American public into supporting a war to overthrow a government based on distorted intel and repetitive linking of Saddam to events he had no active role in. From the onset of the entire Iraq situation, it was very clear to me that President Bush had every intention of invading Iraq regardless of what Saddam did or didn't do.



We don't impeach people based on what they believe to be true. We impeach based on what they DO with that belief. None of those people you quoted invaded Iraq did they? None of them manipulated intel or portrayed speculation as fact to promote their desire to remove Saddam. None of them claimed to be looking for peace while planning for war before they'd even gotten approval from Congress. Yes, you plan for all possibilities but everything I've read on the subject seems to support the claim that President Bush NEVER intended to do anything BUT overthrow Saddam regardless of evidence.

The difference is, none of these people invaded another country or had access to the same intelligence as Bush.

For example, none of these people were in on the daily security briefings where documents titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" were provided and where incidentally, Condi Rice claimed we could not have known that Bin Laden would hijack airliners and fly them into buildings. That was the biggest lie of all.

None of these people were in the high level meetings where multiple intelligence agencies had doubts about our intelligence.

All these people had was the cherry-picked evidence supplied by the White House.

Obviously, Clinton had more, but he never invaded Iraq. He tried to beat them into submission (comply with UN resolutions) via airstrikes and now we know that IT WORKED. So, if you want to blame Clinton, give him credit for succeeding in disarming Saddam.

It doesn't matter what anyone said. They did not invade an occupy another country. They did not unilaterally act on their statements. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was clear in stating this policy did not include the use of military force.

And Amlord, Bush knew the intelligence was weak and made the statements I picked out as FACT. There is no way that he could think these statements factual. I took out the quotes where he repeated what others said because your point does hold water in those cases. But not all.

To refute the assertion that "regime change is illegal. Period." To make that assertion, you must believe that D-Day was illegal. Period. Grenada, Haiti, Panama, Bosnia, Serbia, all illegal.
and the point of this observation is....?

Most, if not all of them, signed the Iraq War Resolution, yes. Or are you suggesting that they did not invade Iraq personally, in which case I think that Bush is off the hook, too.


Please indicate where these Senators qualified their statements as opinion, not fact.

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 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... -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." ..... "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002




As noted, no they did not grab an M-16 and charge off to Iraq. They did, however, sign the Iraq War Resolution, which is about as close a Senator can come to "invading Iraq," is it not?

As for their intel - Carl Levin is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which also serve Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy. They are certainly privy to a fair amount of intelligence. Is it the same - no. Nor will it ever be, especially with the way the Senate leaks nowadays.

And, although I know no one wants to hear it, liberation of the Iraqi people, violation of UN resolutions, yada yada were also listed in the specific resolution as reasons for war. There is no denying this - read the document.

Did I ever make that claim? What I DID say was that it's illegal to manipulate evidence to build a case to attack another country. Quite a different matter altogether.



I believe the point was quite clear...That Bush planned to invade...PERIOD and it didn't matter what assurances he gave the American people to the contrary. He claimed to want a peaceful resolution but the evidence doesn't support that claim. The evidence points to a President giving assurances to the American people that he WAS looking for a peaceful resolution while the evidence points to a mindset bent on war, long before he had Congressional approval and WHILE he was telling the world he was hoping to avoid war.



Most of them voted on this based on the very distortions and manipulations we've been discussing. If you YOU came to me and said we have allllllll this evidence that Saddam has XY&Z and you laid that evidence out (WITHOUT TELLING ME THAT MUCH OF IT WAS DISPUTED OR REFUTED) I'd probably have voted for the invasion myself. THAT is what makes President Bush's behavior so dangerous and inexcusable. He violated the public trust and look where it's led us.



Okay here's one:
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region.




And again as I pointed out above...When you are making your judgements based on cherrypicked intel designed to evoke just such a belief, it's hardly surprising when you get it.



There's also no denying that the main reason Bush received support from the American people and approval to invade Iraq from Congress was based on his bogus WMD claims, NOT on violations of UN resolutions... The American people would never have supported invading Iraq without the subtle linking of Saddam to 911 and without all that manipulated intel that led them to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to our country.

Rather than re-hash the entire case for war, which AD-ers have gone back and forth on at some length, I'd like to focus on your last statement, as it seems to be the crux of the argument - originally against war, then for impeachment.

Where have Bush's actions left us?
On the negative side
- 1700 americans killed and thousands wounded. Some lessening of support from our allies (but we could debate this all day), some loss of credibility at the UN (resisting temptation to roll my eyes here), Cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to fight a war based on potentially mis-leading intelligence. No WMD found, with very few notable exceptions. Continued "insurgent" activity in Iraq resulting in (mostly) Iraqi casualties on a daily basis. No credible exit plan. Militant Islam (continues to) hate the infidel as we fight to impose democracy on its muslim brothers.

On the positive side - eliminated a dictator, established an incipient democracy in the heart of the middle east, significant progress in rebuilding Iraq. Countries like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt starting to get the hint. Condi Rice saying openly that we were wrong to support repressive regimes in the Middle East for 60 years which repressed their people. Encouraging signs in Libya, some of the emirates, "the stans" and even Saudi Arabia (will believe it when I see it)...

Where have the people voted on this war -just off the top of my head - what pro-war leaders have paid the price, and vice-versa?

pro-war nations - 4 for 5, plus 1 unsure:
UK - Blair wins, but with smaller majority
Australia - Howard wins
USA - Bush wins, Republicans increase majority
Denmark - pro-american party hangs on, even with confidence vote this May
Spain - close one, Madrid bombings and mis-management, but I think this one was a loss based on war.
Portugal - Sampaio relected president, Socialists take legislature (not sure what role the war played in this one)

Italy / Poland - no elections I don't believe, but Berlusconi and Kwasniewski's friendship with Bush and support for the war don't appear to be hurting them to me. Ditto for Japan and Koizumi.

anti-war nations - 0 for 2 but I can't think of any more:
Germany - Schoeder and Social Democrats are doomed.
France - Chirac in big trouble
others?

This war was a prominent campaign issue around the world, and the people have supported it (please don't respond with a Washington Post poll or something - I'm talking about real votes here). How can we explain this? Are the world's democratic citizens all the victims of Bush's lying and just don't know it? Could they just possibly be buying into some of the larger, more important issues like ridding the Middle East / Muslim world of tyrants and dictators?

There is so much here to respond to, I don't know where to begin. I shall have to cherry-pick.

First, there's carlitoswhey's massive list of quotes from Democrats stating their belief in Iraq's WMD. He concludes from this list that these people are just as deserving of impeachment as Mr. Bush. The flaw here is that the case for impeachment is not built on the policy decision to invade Iraq, but rather on the use of deception in making the case for war. The Democrats in question were merely echoing what they had been told by the Administration; they were not deceptively distorting the information available to them. That's the distinction. The Bush Administration was deceptively distorting the information -- and that is the case for impeachment.

Amlord raises what I think is the most important defense: the "slam dunk" quote from Tenet. This raises the possibility that Mr. Bush truly was being honest and was misled by an incompetent or malevolent Mr. Tenet. However, let's keep the timing straight. The slam dunk quote was in late December, 2002. Mr. Bush's administration was on record as declaring WMD an absolute fact long before the slam dunk quote. The crucial moment of truth was the runup to the Congressional vote authorizing military action -- which preceded the slam dunk quote. During that period, the administration provided Congress with information that led them to authorize military action. Yet, those same congresscritters, armed with the knowledge now available, would surely not have voted to authorize military action. We can only conclude that the administration deliberately misled Congress to obtain authorization.


This is off-topic, but you are so completely incorrect here that I feel it necessary to correct your statement. I suggest that you consult the
Pew Research Center report. This is only one of many; I'm sure that you'll find the data there quite disturbing. The US action in Iraq is widely deplored around the world.


No, that's not the end of the story. The UN declared Iraq to be in material breach of the agreement, but reserved to itself the decision as to how to respond to that material breach. The UN was the only body with the legal authority to decide the appropriate response. The US did not have any legal justification for deciding that invasion was the appropriate response to the UN decision. A good analogy here would be as follows: a court (the UN) finds the accused (Saddam) to be guilty of murder. A lynch mob (the US) seizes upon that guilty verdict and lynches the accused. That's not legal.

Yes, the war is indeed unpopular around the world. I was in Barcelona the day the bombing started, and the Catalans were indeed not pleased, their 'banderita de pax' flying en-masse reminiscent (in rainbow hue) of a giant gay-pride rally.

My point was - if this war is so unpopular and unjust that we should impeach our president, why do its supporters get re-elected and its detractors see themselves in danger? Even if we deconstruct the domestic issues for each and every country, surely this commonality is difficult to ignore - people actually voting appear to support leaders who went to war, and seem to oppose anti-war Charlemagne and perhaps others?

I could also point out the incessant anti-war bent of media coverage, excepting the embeds during the invasion. One could reasonably conclude that if one shouts "Bush is a cowboy warmonger idiot" at one's readers/viewers for 5 years straight and then takes a poll about Bush's war to get that guy who tried to kill his daddy, one shouldn't be surprised at the anti-war outcome.

The same people answering the Pew poll were protesting our missles during the Cold War. This is status quo in Europe, not some loss of credibility via BushCo.

No, we should not impeach Mr. Bush because the war is unpopular and unjust. The only case for impeachment is based on evidence that he deliberately deceived Congress and the American people in order to obtain support for his policy.


First, your generalization applies only in Western Europe. Second, the incumbents are in trouble for entirely different reasons, as is shown by the political polling. You have taken a handful of coincidences and extrapolated a broad conclusion that is totally inconsistent with the poll results.


Read the Pew results. They show a dramatic drop in support for the USA as a consequence of the Iraq war. This is most definitely not status quo -- this is a change.

1. Did you watch the hearings or only read about them?

I watched bits and pieces and read about it.

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?

Not even close.

3. What is the strongest evidence for impeachment and why (if there is any evidence, in your opinion)?

Nada.

I do not want to add too much to this debate. It is partisan in nature and fueled by the intense dislike of Bush from the Left. After painfully watching the same thing during the Clinton administration, my appetite for impeachment nonsense is low.

What I have never understood about the whole war debate was lack of sympathy for the Iraqi people. It seems as if you live outside of Europe or the United States genocide is acceptable. When it happened in Bosnia and then Kosovo NATO stopped it. The United Nations was not evolved (Russia veto). Regardless of the political rhetoric of the time, why was it okay to use force to stop genocide in the Balkans and not Iraq?

Before any conservatives want to jump on this train of thought and use it for justification in Iraq I warn you to look back. Clinton was accused of “wagging the dog” and there was considerable outrage on the Right about the use of force in Bosnia. For that reason, the US involvement was mainly from the air at first.

Pacifists aside, should the US intervene when genocide takes place? The next time a Rwanda takes place should the US do something if Europe does not want to act? I think these are the larger questions that we are faced with now.

1. Did you watch the hearings or only read about them?

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?

3. What is the strongest evidence for impeachment and why (if there is any evidence, in your opinion)?

First of all, this wasn't a "hearing" at all. It was a dog and pony show for the media by a few Bush-hating liberals with obviously nothing better to do. I watched bits and portions of it for entertainment purposes only.

But, let's get to the real or imagined "substance" of these infamous Downing Street memos. The question seems to be polarized around the old "what did he know and when did he know it" thing that always seems to crop up when we want to impeach a President. Based on these memos from 2002, those who dislike Bush claim "he lied". Those who either support Bush or at least don't hold the hatred for him that the left does say the memos prove no such thing. And thus, as usual in this sort of debate, we have an impasse it would seem. Sure would be nice if we had an impartial third party to look at this whole thing in a "sober" fashion wouldn't it? Well, we do.

I would direct everyone's attention to the transcript of Hans Blix's report to the United Nations back on 27Jan2003, well after the dates of the Downing Street memos. Let's look at some of the things Mr Blix had to day about Iraq shall we?









I've probably pushed the limit on quoting from a single article here, but there is more. I encourage people to read the entire transcript.

So, the question becomes did Hans Blix lie to the UN? Was he a part of this nefarious Bush conspiracy to cause a war with Iraq? His testimony before the UN in 2003 certainly seems to indicate that he thought there was a good chance Iraq was less than truthful about their WMD programs. And, he was quite obviously concerned. It seems to me that if one is going to take the position that President Bush lied about Iraq's WMD programs in 2002, then Hans Blix also lied about it in 2003. So, should they share a cell together?

Emphasis mine. That's almost proof! Didn't Blix make statements to affect before the war that it appeared Iraq was indeed complying with the UN resolutions? So ignore him before the war, and use him as proof afterwards. Nice, yet another piece of revisionist history.

You just have too much faith that our government wouldn't stoop that low. I know better.

2. Based on the information you have, is there enough evidence to begin the impeachment process of Bush and/or Cheney?

I’m not familiar with the legal angle that impeachment hearings are based upon. Is it more like a criminal trial, where it’s “beyond reasonable doubt” or is it like a civil trial where it’s a “preponderance of evidence”? If it’s the latter than I think a case could be made for impeachment.

3. What is the strongest evidence for impeachment and why (if there is any evidence, in your opinion)?

I don’t believe there’s a single piece of evidence that could prompt impeachment hearings, but when you look at the entire scope there’s certainly a pattern. To me, the Downing Street memo, clear of any domestic political influence, could be the nail in the coffin.

I’ve mentioned this before in other threads, but this one statement from the pre-invasion State of the Union says a lot:



This shameless statement, playing on the emotions of every citizen, clearly indicates to me that the invasion of Iraq was a forgone conclusion on September 12th. Why else would you make such a preposterous claim?

In all honesty I wouldn’t want to see Bush impeached; I don’t think it would be good for the country. And I want him to finish sleeping in the bed he made.

Well, for people to vote, they do need democracy... I don't recall the Iraq war being much of a campaign issue in India or South Africa, but feel free to prove me wrong. If it were an issue in Zimbabwe or Iran, we couldn't really trust the outcome anyway. I stand by my comments on Koizumi in Japan, but I suppose you could say anti-Bush sentiment held sway in South Korea. The voters in North Korea can't make it to the polls, but I bet you a North Korean Won that they'd prefer Bush to Kim Jong Il.


Now you are generalizing based on Western Europe. Our 'favorable' ratings are down in Western Europe and mixed in the middle east - up big in Pakistan, even in Turkey, and down in Jordan. Big deal. According to this poll, Jordanians are also big fans of mass-murdering psychotic Osama Bin Laden, and 70% say that suicide bombing is justified.

And what was my point about people getting the broader theme? Ah, yes:

Seems a mixed bag to me, but there are a lot of interesting tidbits in here.

Tenet convinced Bush who convinced Cheney who convinced Powell who convinced our allies who sold Blix. It's all Bush, er, Tenet!

Fife, the point which was made eloquenty (for a change) by Mr. Bush, was that post 9/11 it was no longer acceptable for terror-associated regimes to have weapons, weapons programs, or "probably" weapons programs.

Of course, when newspaper headlines the next day scream Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat I guess I could see why most people thought he said said the complete opposite of what he said. I've never seen such a debate where both sides feel that we are living in Bizarro World parallel universe. It really is something.

Aquilla, I don't see the logic behind your extensive quotes from Hans Blix. Yes, Mr. Blix provided some evidence that there might be WMD. He also produced evidence that there might not be. The overall conclusion, which you quoted, was that "These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility." The issue here is not whether Mr. Bush was right or wrong (in the event, he turned out to be wrong), but whether he actively deceived the Congress and the public as to the imminence of WMD possession by Iraq. Mr. Blix's report shows that it was most definitely not a certainty that there were WMD, yet Mr. Bush insisted that it was a certainty. The difference between the administration's declarations of certainty and the absence of evidence sufficient for certainty constitutes the basis for claiming deception.

Mr. Blix presented all the facts as he knew them, including the uncertainties. Mr. Bush presented only some of the facts and none of the uncertainties. That's the difference between the two, and that difference does constitute an impeachable offense.

carlitoswhey, you seem to echo the Bush administration's ability to pick and choose your data to support your position. I too could pick and choose data to make the point that we are hated. I will simply suggest that readers peruse the entire document. The overall picture is most definitely not pretty, nor does it suggest in any fashion that the world thinks better of us for invading Iraq. Indeed, there are other studies there (here's the index to their foreign policy reports) that suggest just how bad it is. A survey taken just at the start of the war showed that the favorable view of the US in eight countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia, and Turkey) had plummeted in every one of them. That survey is here. Again, I suggest that readers consult these studies to determine which of us is presenting a more honest representation of their content.

Mr Blix's report was public knowledge at the time. This isn't some surreptitious report of which Bush was only relaying a modicum. Bush made a decision based on his judgement, regarding the information available. He relayed his reasons to the public, based on his judgement of the data given. I don't see this as an impeachable offense.

Edited to add: I think it's worth noting that Blix was head of the IAEA while a highly advanced nuclear weapons program was pursued by Iraq right under his nose (discovered after the first Gulf war). Iraq was inspected and considered under full compliance until that time.

Let's be precise here. The concern is not Mr. Bush's decision or judgment, it is his representation of the facts to Congress and the public. Please reconsult all those quotes I provided from the administration saying, over and over, that it was a certainty that Iraq possessed WMD. It was not presented as a judgment or an opinion, but a fact. Yet lots of information available to the administration clearly showed that it was not a certainty.

The administration represented as a certainty a claim that it knew -- or should have reasonably known -- was not a certainty. That's an impeachable offense.

Presenting some of the facts and none of the uncertainties isnot a "High Crime and Misdemeanor." Even if true (which it's not), to use this logic, a president could never advocate for anything. A chief executive has to chart a course of action and bring everyone else along - he's a cheerleader, a champion. No successful leader would sensibly chip at his own support by highlighting the "what ifs" or uncertainties of his plan. Is this how Clinton sold welfare reform? How FDR sold the New Deal? By highlighting uncertainty?

Here is Harry Truman 2 days after the North Koreans invaded the South.

Was this bluster? Hyperbole? Probably. Was it an impeachable offense? Did he have rock-solid evidence that the Chinese or Koreans was really going to invade Iran? Would his "Greece of the Far East" claim have stood up in court?

That is incorrect. The official policy of the United States government when William Jefferson Clinton was president was NOT regime change in North Korea or Iran.

But it WAS with respect to Iraq.

The distorted Intel that you refer to was largely collected when ole Bubba was the president. Perhaps it would have been better if he, and his adminstration had not devastated the ranks of human intelligence sources (HUMINT).

The same intel was accepted by people like John Kerry and John Edwards far before the current action in Iraq began. After 9/11, even democrats were sounding like "superhawks".... for a time.

I think Bush would have avoided the invasion of Iraq if given the chance. But Saddam and his corrupt allies within the UN and in countries like France made that impossible. They pushed the Bush administration into a corner and they deserve much blame in this entire mess.

Regime change in Iraq was Clinton's policy. That is a historical fact. Bush merely implemented it. Clinton had his chance in 1996 when he kicked the UN inspectors out and defined Clinton to his face. He added insult to injury in 1998 when he tried to have Bush's father killed. Yet, Clinton did nothing but lob a few cruise missiles into empty buildings in the dead of night. With such shows of previous unresolve, who could blame the intransigence of Saddam or the corruption of the UN intent on showing up the USA?

Aquilla, as a person who was immediately for the attack on Bin Laden but was dubious of the "War on Terror's" association with an attack on Iraq, I'll volunteer to be that independent third party.

The part missing from your characterization of Blix is contained in the undeniable fact that Blix wanted MORE time to inspect and so did members of the U.N. Security Council.

To quote your answer to question 3 in this debate:

3. What is the strongest evidence for impeachment and why (if there is any evidence, in your opinion)?

Aquilla: First of all, this wasn't a "hearing" at all. It was a dog and pony show for the media by a few Bush-hating liberals with obviously nothing better to do. I watched bits and portions of it for entertainment purposes only.

But, let's get to the real or imagined "substance" of these infamous Downing Street memos. The question seems to be polarized around the old "what did he know and when did he know it" thing that always seems to crop up when we want to impeach a President. Based on these memos from 2002, those who dislike Bush claim "he lied". Those who either support Bush or at least don't hold the hatred for him that the left does say the memos prove no such thing. And thus, as usual in this sort of debate, we have an impasse it would seem. Sure would be nice if we had an impartial third party to look at this whole thing in a "sober" fashion wouldn't it? End of Aquilla's statement about Iraq's oft-quoted sin of non-compliance.

Let's add the following undeniable facts to Aquilla's linking of Blix and absolution of Bush or his administration (my emphasis in bold):

The UN inspections produced a mixed record. On one hand, Iraq granted access to former and suspected weapons sites that had previously been concealed. The Iraqi government also agreed to destroy certain missiles that were capable of hitting targets more than 150 km (90 mi) away (a range prohibited by previous disarmament agreements). On the other hand, Iraq did not facilitate private interviews with Iraqi scientists and weapon makers, and the government was not forthcoming about the details of its earlier weapons programs. In a February 28, 2003, report Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), concluded that Iraq had cooperated with the process for conducting inspections but had not provided sufficient information or tried hard enough to resolve the considerable uncertainties about the status of Iraq’s weapons program.

<snip>

Faced with opposition in the Security Council and reluctance on the part of Turkey, the United States and Britain remained determined to take military action and assembled a coalition force in Kuwait.

<snip>

On March 17 Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his immediate family 48 hours to leave the country or face a military attack. Hussein, however, had no intention of leaving Iraq.

<snip>

As UN weapons inspectors evacuated Iraq on March 18, UNMOVIC head Blix indicated that he believed the inspectors should have been given more time to investigate Iraq’s weapons programs.

Source: http://encarta.msn.com/text_701610462___2/...ar_of_2003.html.

The point is, Blix, Hussein, Iraq and the Security Council were NEVER going to get that time even though we knew from unbiased UNMOVIC reports that Iraq was probably not a major threat. Certainly the "evidence" being framed was part and parcel to the already-planned "Regime Change and that framing of evidence was and remains an outright deception that should have never been used to convince our nation to go to war in Iraq.

It is my opinion that Osama Bin Laden along with other fundamentalist zealots should have remined the focus instead of a secular leader who actually kept religious fanatics in his own country under his thumb.

You who have clearly read the UNMOVIC report know full well UNMOVIC never stated anything to that effect.

The Bush administration had the benefit of experience with Iraqis successfully hiding WMD such as tons of VX gas from inspectors for years.

The UNMOVIC inspections picked up where Operation Desert Fox ended UNSCOM inspections in which this was the view of the United States.

Clinton announces Iraq strikes: Full text

The "treat" of Iraqi WMD was dubbed common knowledge in Washington for years and without evidence which iraq, despite its obligation, refused to decide, it is unreasonable to think that the Bush adminstration would be dissuaded from believing the long time fear of American leaders.

Clinton defends successor's push for war

You are not addressing the issue here, which is whether Mr. Bush deceived the Congress and the American public by falsely declaring certainty where the facts suggested otherwise. Yes, a President has a duty to advocate what he thinks best, but there's a difference between advocacy and reportage. If Mr. Bush had confined his comments to statements along the lines of "I think we should invade Iraq", then that would have been fine. But he made declarations of fact that weren't substantiated by the information available to him. He asked us to accept his judgment because of the facts that he presented to us -- but now we know that these facts were not substantiated.

Your comparison with Clinton's welfare reform and FDR's New Deal fails because in both cases, the administration was not controlling the facts on which the decision would be made. Those facts were available for all to see.


In the first place, you ignore the fact that Bush declared his intention to invade Iraq in 1999, before he was elected. In the second place, the image of the pacifist Bush administration being forced --- FORCED -- by that sneaky Saddam to invade Iraq (obviously part of Saddam's master plan to conquer the universe) is literally ludicrous: I laughed out loud when I first read it.


This is not relevant to the question at hand. (And it's also a falsehood)

turnea, you too are missing the topic here, which concerns impeachment, not the Iraq war. Did Mr. Bush deceive the Congress and the American people by declaring the existence of Iraqi WMD a certainty?

No more than Clinton did by declaring exactly the same thing.

Bush thought the presence of Iraqi WMD was a certainty and the Iraqis had given him plenty of reasons to come to that conclusion.

The fact that he hadn't seen them was not enough to dissuade him on a long-standing US policy concern.

Intent to deceive matters and I see no reliable evidence against Bush on that note.

I didn't say Clinton wanted regime change in North Korea or Iran, here's what I DID say:


Of course we've wanted (past tense referring to Clinton) regime change in Iraq, as I'm sure we want (present tense referring to the current administration) it in Iran and North Korea. If you've ever read the Policy For A New American Century, you'd already know that many of the war hawks in Bush's upper levels were party to that document which calls for American domination and regime change.

That was in response to Carlito's post on policy. I should have been more clear.



Did "ole Bubba" invade Iraq during his term in office or did Bush? As to the intel, being "poor/flawed etc" th