In the war against Iraq, everything that Bush has so far said to be true has been proven wrong. What does this tell us? It tells us that he has thrown us into all-out war with a foreign country, because of his false assumptions. He has completely decimated our foreign policy. So, the question arises:

What should we do with him?

Without a doubt, we should definitely impeach him. The Senate has enough evidence against Bush that he'll probably lose his office. But should we take more action after that? I believe we should. In my mind, he should be tried before a court on more criminal charges. This is assault on an entire country! How do we distinguish between justified war and assault though? With an analyzation of the evidence used to take action against Iraq. What evidence did we have to go to war? We had Mr. Bush's word that Iraq still had WMD's. Has any proof of this been presented yet? Nope. In fact, it's been just the opposite. With numerous accounts of factories that he said to be "In production of WMD's," not a single one as far as I know has been discovered to have been doing that.

What we should do with Bush is what we should have done with Iraq. We should investigate and inquire, and, when we feel we have sufficient evidence, we should act. I'm quite sure that Bush Inc. deliberately lied about what they knew (vs. what they merely guessed) but I don't think that actual proof of that has yet been developed. That's exactly what a special prosecutor is supposed to do, and should be doing now. If no proof is actually found, that's fine as long as the proper process was followed and the investigation was allowed to occur.

I agree with Platypus about investigating before acting, but I think MORE than enough information has come forth that definitely warrants an investigation into the matter. I, like so many other people in this world, want to know the TRUTH, and nothing less.

Rickmanx

I am no Bush fan but we are way ahead of the game right now for impeachment talk and I hope we never get there.

What I believed happened was an abuse of the intelligence services intelligence and factoring all information on a worst-case scenario basis.

We should criticize and investigate what we do not like. I just wish that 50+% of the voters are uncomfortable enough with his policies to vote for the other major party.

Polls to date reflect no such thing, and Bush will break a fundraising record in no time to make his 2004 warchest spill over.

You're kind of an all or nothing guy, aren't you Bean?
There is no evidence that Bush lied about the intelligence. We controlled 60 percent of Iraq's airspace for 12 years because we wanted to protect Iraqis (of religious underclass) from Saddam's WMD and internal terror. Why didn't we pull out, instead of risking our pilots and spending billions in the process, if we knew they weren't hiding weapons? Why didn't the evil Bush plant them, it's not like we don't have any to spare.

That being said, I do think there should be an independant investigation.

Geez, Bean, when you change your mind about something, you go all out! I understand your impulse, though - there are times when I have felt betrayed by public officials whom I had previously trusted and had a fairly strong reaction myself. Alas, our politcians have long since lead me to expect such behavior as a matter of course.

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree with you. The possibility of impeachment is already being discussed and was, I believe, first raised by John Dean in a column at FindLaw.com, to which I referred in the He Admits It! thread.

As I stated in that thread, if it can be proved that Bush (or those acting on his behalf - or, more to the point, those on whose behalf he acts) manipulated and misused national security agencies or their intelligence to create phony reasons to lead the nation into a politically desirable war, he should be impeached, tried for his crimes and, if found guilty, heavily fined and imprisoned. And that should happen to everyone involved.

I think it goes without saying that any action should be based on a thorough and cautious investigation. I do not, however, feel that a Special Prosecutor should be given the task of mounting investigation after investigation at a cost of millions upon millions of dollars until something - anything - can be pinned on Bush (as was done by Ken Starr with President Clinton). We saw way too much time, money, and legislative resources wasted on that sort of vindictive nonsense during the nineties to even consider revisiting such a partisan vendetta.

Yes, it appears that I forgot to include the statement that I thought we should of course have an investigation. I believe I said that in the WMD thread, not sure though. I do feel strongly on this issue however. Every time I saw a report that another Bus assumption had been incorrect, I dismissed it, due to the fact that everyone makes mistakes, even if it is on a scale as grand as that of war. However, as Bush was proven wrong time and time again, the idea and extremely likely possibility popped out that he didn't have any evidence to justify the war, and was probably making assumptions the whole time, simply wanting to convince the general public that Iraq had WMD's. Without a doubt, an investigation needs to be had. I also think that in order to have an investigation and to stir up interest in the matter, articles like the ones we;ve had posted here should be brought to the attention of our not-so-informed public. Most of the people I know didn't realize until 2 weeks ago that we'd even gone to war.

I think we should do what we all know is going to be done anyway. Let the voters decide in '04.

Personally, I can't wait. We have in this President a man who knows the true meaning of leadership and has the fortitude to exercise it. I've always been proud to be an American, and now I'm also proud of my President.

Well, you do have to give Bush some brownie points . He certainly was decisive about this, and convinced the public that the war was right, even if he didn't have the best evidence. What he needs now is some patience, and the drive to actually do a fair amount of intelligence gathering before launching into a war. You're right though, he's a good leader, just not the most intelligent when it comes to matters such as these.

I don't think we should do anything to Bush

He was given bad intell & it shouldn't be him that gets hung.

I think there should be investigations into the CIA's contacts & intell on these weapons in Iraq but there shouldn't be impeachment proceedings on Bush because of the bad intell. Impeachment for what?? For him getting bad intell? No. That's going too far. It's not like he lied to a federal Grand Jury under oath.

I think there is a different problem then bad intel, I think the Bush admin people have a heavy distrust of CIA intel and created their own interpretations of intel.

When I see a report of CIA intel that was factually specific and dead wrong with a statement that the info was 100% reliable then maybe I will deflect some of my disdain at the CIA and away from bush staffers

I agree that a full official enquiry should be instigated, and Bush should be called to task by either an independent panel, a special prosecutor or the Senate. If evidence is found that he deliberately led the public astary, or that his judgement was seriously impaired by other factors, then the next stage should be impeachment.

Having said that, it will never ever happen. There may be an investigation but it will turn up nithing, and Bush will come out as whiter than white. Why? Because the Uraq war was fought in support of the interests of the American corporate-industrial leviathon, and it is this powerful lobby - more pwerful even than the American electorate - who will protect Bush and ensure that no mud sticks to their boy.

Impeachment? Special investigation? For???? The man was told by his intell people that Iraq had WMD, For 12 years Iraq has violated the no-fly zones mandated by the rules they agreed to when they admitted defeat in the first gulf war. The country was ruled by a madman that used most of the money from oil exports to erect symbols of himself and to make his life and those closest to him more comfy instead of making sure his countrymen and women had a better life.
The man should be praised for letting a country have a chance at democracy, for finally overthrowing a tyrrant that has caused much instability in that area of the world.
Lets keep in mind the man had 12 years to prove to the world that he was a good leader and the world had nothing to worry about anymore, But instead he chose to thumb his nose at the world and do things the way he wanted to do.
Bush did what clinton should have done and what Sr. should have done in the first place: Got rid of that moron!
What are we going to impeach or conduct a inquiry about on a president next? His choice of vegetables? Or maybe what country makes his clothes? Get a grip

This is all irrelevant. The subject of any investigation or impeachment would be whether or not Bush misled the country over the existence of WMD's in Iraq.

It won't happen.

A republician senate will not even begin investigation on their victorious republician president unless he *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** them off - AND - there is irrefutable proof of his crimes.

-Robert

Fisherman: "morons"???
Greenring7: "*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** them off?"???

We can debate this without such crass language. Let's be civil when we discuss these issues, please.

I'm not too sure this is true. Have you checked today's report on ABCNews?



Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/i...16_uranium.html

If this turns out to be true, then Bush would of known all along that the dossier claim was BOGUS, and therefore lied.

Plus, what about the Mobile Weapons Labs which recently were proven by British Investigators to be not only exactly what the Iraqis claim ( Mobile Artillery Balloon Stations ), but it also appears a UK company called Marconi Command & Control SOLD them to Iraq in 1987!

Maybe Bush didn't lie about that one, but I'm not too sure about Blair.

Rickmanx

In fact, the Bush administration was given conflicting and, in some cases, false intelligence - and chose to acknowledge and run with the minority opinion, including that based on the false intel. In order to make the case for war, the Bush administration had to form the OSP - none of the existing intelligence agencies were reaching the "appropriate" conclusions on their own. Without the OSP, it is likely that there would never have been a case for any kind of pre-emptive action. Without the thorough investigation which the American people deserve, it is difficult to say for sure - but all available information indicates that selected intelligence was deliberately manipulated and other intelligence deliberately ignored with the intention of misleading the UNSC, the US Congress, and the American people in order to make a case for the Iraqi campaign.

Huh - and it only took the Bush administration about two years to do exactly the same thing. May we assume that you're suggesting we have our own "morons" that need to be "got rid of"? I heartily agree, fisherman.

Perhaps our country being lead to an unprecedented pre-emptive war under false pretenses is trivial to you, sir. To me, it is considerably more serious than a president lying about having extramarital sex. But, then, I give a damn about this country. Perhaps you don't.

Seems to me the President has a huge responsibility to lead *with wisdom* the armed forces of the US. If the intel - (how does a chip manufacturer get into this?) - ligence was bogus, and the administration knew it was bogus put chose to spin it into reality, then why was this done?

Were there good, wise reasons for doing this, or were the reasons (as I suspect) wishful thinktank pipe dreams?

As we discover that the intelligence wasn't very good, we become a tad upset. If we discover that this also led us into a quagmire of problems in the ME, then I think we can safely vote the people responsible for this out--and the buck stops at the Executive's desk. Get rid of him and we get rid of the rest.

I'm against impeachment proceedings because this is a highly wasteful, partisan process--as we have all witnessed in recent history. Let the votes get counted and the people make the decision regarding effective leadership.

YES! That is it! Impeachment would be stupid because it's not like he lied under oath to a federal grand jury.

Let the public decide if they can trust him for another 4 years with this WMD bit chewing away at him & his cabinet.



I found this poll interesting Iraq poll

The Question:

Justified Only If Find Evidence: 23%
Justified Even If Does Not Find Evidence: 56%


Note: You'll have to look above the NPR Poll.

No matter what happens, we need an investigation. We don't really know whether or not Bush had bad intel. So, who's really at fault? Is it Bush, or is it the CIA? We can't know right now, which is why the investigation is needed.

Should George W. Bush be impeached for misleading us about his reasons for taking us to war with Iraq? Yes, I believe he should. Will the Senate convict him? Likely not, but it would probably hurt him at the polls in 2004.

Andrew Johnson was impeached for firing a cabinet member.

Nixon was impeached for attempting to cover up a breaking and entering job.

Clinton was impeached because he didn't want his wife to know he'd been cheating on her, so he lied to everyone who might mention something to her.

It would seem apparent that we have not yet set clear standards to define "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The party in control of Congress is apparently a factor, as a trial by one's "peers" is viewed as less likely than a trial by the opposition party.

Should George W. Bush be able to rely on information from the CIA? His father used to head the organization, so he probably has a better feel for that question than most Presidents. Did they just send him the information they thought he wanted to see? That's something that might be done by bureaucrats interested in keeping their jobs. If he couldn't trust their information, he should have taken action against the CIA until he found what he was looking at in the morning was reliable. instead, it seems, he took unprecedented pre-emptive action against a foreign nation.

Has he lied to Congress, the American people, and the UN about why we went to war? Almost certainly. There has been a constant shift in language and rationalization. He has claimed victory and an end to hostilities, but the news is still reporting on deaths and military operations. A time will soon come when we mark more deaths keeping the peace than waging the war. Will I trust a sudden find of WMD's in October 2004? No. If his numbers in the polls slip, will he try to raise his ratings with films of Tomahawk Missiles and MOABS? Which country is his next target of opportunity? Whose oil wells need to be liberated?

I have been told that George's actions were Machiavellian, since no one questions the actions of a successful prince. However, Machiavelli's directives to a prince who wishes to occupy a land where the language and customs differ, do not resemble Bush's actions. Niccolo said that the prince should, as a first option, go to the land and rule it from there, making no changes in laws or tax structures. As a second option, he should colonize it. Under no circumstances should he attempt to occupy it with a military force, as that only costs money and creates enemies. That's Conservative advice that has stood the test of centuries, though one wouldn't expect a Liberal President to necessarily be familiar with it.

I was told by several TV commentators, that getting out of the co-pilot's seat and saluting the Captain of the Abraham Lincoln, George W. Bush looked like a leader. Currently, it seems as though he is following his pilot's emergency training. He's shown us how to wear a parachute, and he's at the bow of a moving ship. He's leading us into a storm, but telling us we're well prepared if we have to jump off. Marine one is standing by, he tells us, so that if the ship is attacked by terrorists, we won't be left without a leader.

(Edited by Emoticons for President in 2003, the alternative to Gore in 2005.)

As Wertz has touched on already, Bush was not told that Iraq had WMDs but rather that they speculated Iraq had WMDs. The only intelligence group which may have tried presenting assumption as fact to the President, before he returned the favor for the American public, is the Office of Special Plans (OSP).

In addition to the story already provided by Rickmanx, tompaine.com/Thielmann

As far as speculation becoming absolute proof in the hands of the administration...
Defense Intelligence Agency, "There is no reliable information..."
The article manages to make mention of the CIA as well.

The administration was not given bad intelligence, but rather manipulated that intelligence poorly. That Bush and other administration officials knew at least some of the information they presented to the UNSC and the American public (State of the Union address) was fabricated indicates that they knowingly lied to America and the world.

It might also be worth mentioning, Fisherman, that Iraq didn't agree to any no-fly zones, and the UN never sanctioned them. While we may all agree Saddam was a tyrant, firing upon American and British planes in these zones was nothing more than a [once] sovereign nation firing upon aircraft invading their airspace.
No-fly zones, no authorization

As far as just waiting around twiddling our thumbs and then presumably re-electing a President with knack for fabricating evidence and lying to both his fellow citizens and the world, Passion, I thought you didn't like the idea of people burying their heads in the sand?

I'm not terribly familiar with the standards or procedures behind the impeachment process, but I definately think there needs to be an extensive investigation of the administration regarding the Iraq claims. The American public should not be expected to bow loyally to its leadership and allow themselves to be manipulated and lied to. That is the way of Saddam's now crumbled regime, not the way of a freedom loving democracy.

Please include in the investigation those on the Senet Security Council who has looked at the evidence (which is classified) and have all of them investigated as well who came out in full support of this administrations actions.

I am not prepared to take the word of former ambassadors, the media, the opposing party, pundits, etc. when there is a good chance that they may be biased.
Time will tell, and an election is coming.
Unless the democrats can come up with a VIABLE candidate, we should re-elect Bush, warts and all.

I don't think we've ever had a president who has to endure so many people who are so ludicrisly bent on jumping on him every chance they get. "What should we do with him?" We should wait 'till it's time for elections before we jump down his throat and stop talking about impeachment. I can't wait untill Bush proves himself right, a lot of people are going to look very foolish.

CP

Where were you four years ago?

Oh come on now. Clinton was actually proven to have done something wrong. BTW, I actually applauded his effort in the war against Slobadan Milosovic. The criticism wasn't nearly as blatantly partisan.

CP

Bush hasn't been proven to do something yet. Still, based on our current evidence, we can assume that he did do something, but we need an investigation to find out. If you call our wanting an investigation because we care about our government "jumping on bush's back," then yes, we definitely are jumping on his back.

The criticism is proportionate to the behavior, i.e., a WAR started under false pretenses in Iraq.

When I was a kid, I had to give a reason why I was leaving the house. If that reason did not square with reality, I was punished for lying. That's pretty simple.

We are not questioning G.W. Bush's courage. We are not questioning the fact that Saddam Hussein was/is a nasty dictator.

We are questioning the real reason so much armament and manpower were sent into a country that hadn't attacked our country, especially since Dubya is waffling on the reasons now. Especially since Dubya is trying to maintain that the tractor trailers for the hydrogen balloons were weapons labs, where no germs or toxic chemicals were found. And, as far as I know, there have been no definitive links made to al Qaeda with the Iraqi regime. Although there are a lot of al Qaeda wannabes attacking the occupation forces now. Ah, sweet liberty!

As far as partisanship goes, it is the Republicans who are trying to apply the brakes to an all-out investigation in Congress. Dennis Hastert, notably. Just like the Democrats didn't want impeachment proceedings related to a stain on a White House intern's dress.

I would hate to be a parent who lost a child in a conflict where s/he was sent in because of a lie. I would hold George W. Bush personally responsible in that case. While my child's bravery would not be invalidated, my President's integrity would.

The American people should not be lied to. They need to know the real reasons behind the Bush administration's actions, and let the chips fall where they may. (It's too bad that telling the truth is not part of the President's oath of office. The turnover rate would be a lot quicker! I know--it's a real flight of fancy! )

I do love my country. I don't like shenanigans.

Just outta curiosity who out there would you believe if they told you the evidence presented was in fact truth? Because your statement, to me, seems like the only one you would believe is GWB himself.

Because as far as "biased" as you put it.. well this biased list is growing..

and when does "biased" become truth?? hmmm I wonder.

Rickmanx

Hmmm.... should we re-elect Bush. Well, that's a good question. If we discover that he really didn't have evidence, and that this war was totally wrong, then heck no. If there was some fault in intelligence (which I don't think there was, i don't think he received any), then maybe we should elect him. Still, it remains to be proven that he had sufficient evidence to go to war. And don't say he was a threat to us: the last time was in 1998, and he didn't attack us then. Who cares if he said he wanted to attack us now, if he couldn't?

We should do what ever it takes to make sure he doesn't get re APPOINTED. No one has an excuse not to vote.

This really tickles me: goamerica's poll reference shows just how easily people will fall in line with whatever the present administration does. Why do you suppose that is?

To me, it is quite simple: Terrorism and war are abstractions to most citizens. In other words, this stuff happens to other people.

But what if this stuff comes right smack dab in your face, as with the family who recently lost a son to a sniper's bullet in a war that's supposed to be over?

Um, well now, that's different.

So, what is smack dab in people's faces right now? In a word, the ECONOMY--lay offs, unemployment, job loss, hiring so enemic that it's bleeding dust.

So how do you get people to ignore that? Start another invasion?

Yep, that might work. Or it might backfire due to abstractions becoming real threats.

Just to keep the record straight, Nixon was never impeached. He resigned before that could happen. The Repubs wanted Clinton to do the same, but the bahstahd didn't play into that scheme.

Well, lots can happen between now and Election Day, 2004. The economy might turn around, and it is about due for that--unless the administration blows it with its push to dominate the ME, thus causing all sorts of irrational (and rational) fear. I suspect this might happen from leadership that brought us the duct tape solution. (That really was an SNL routine, wasn't it?)

[quote=Rickmanx,Jun 17 2003, 08:43 PM] [/QUOTE]
Just outta curiosity who out there would you believe if they told you the evidence presented was in fact truth? Because your statement, to me, seems like the only one you would believe is GWB himself.

Because as far as "biased" as you put it.. well this biased list is growing..

and when does "biased" become truth?? hmmm I wonder.

Rickmanx [/quote]
Evidence ain't always proof, but don't take my statements as a blanket endorsement of Bush. Like I said, a viable candidate from the other side is what is needed.
I have been reading too many books lately that cover the last 30 years of government deeds, good and bad, done by accident or on purpose. This much I think I know, they all lie, and we can't know which ones are the biggest liars til well after the fact.

Although I think Bush is a danger to my country and almost the worst president ever he shouldn't be impeached. His worst offense isn't Iraq it's he is part of a right wing movement to keep power in the hands of the super rich and cheat everyone else. The current administration promotes voter apathy so the voters are easier to trick. The education system isn't Bush's priority because his donor's kids go to private school. Health isn't Bush's priority because his donors can afford health care. Taxes cuts are Bush's priority because his donors are tremendously greedy. Half of what he does isn't to make the country better but to pretend he cares. Being a shallow corporate puppet that wants to make life easy for a few and impossible for everyone else isn't an impeachable offense. Bush is engaging in class warfare against the poor and it's sick. That's why I would never vote for him and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

While we may disagree on what his worst offenses are, Rancid, I think it better to acknowledge them all than take those you have the least problem with and set them aside entirely. Attention to aiding the rich and special interest groups doesn't negate the fact that Bush and other administration officials willfully deceived the American public in a bid to go to war. While Saddam was a tyrant, our men and women should not have had to die in the service of lies and deception.

Where does it stop?

If such an investigation as asked for occurs (which seems unlikely) and the evidence continues to stand against him, I would like to think that Bush would be impeached. That being said, though, I would only like to see that happen if we could clean up the entire administration. According to one SITE I visited, impeachment would leave the reigns of power in Cheney's hands, and I'd much rather deal with the puppet than the puppet masters.

AM, there was also a concern for the economy during the Iraq war. He didn't just ignore it. He has also been working on ways to fix the economy. While they may not be good, he is working on it unlike his father who ignored it.

The same about the war on terrorism. I found a poll, but can't find it now, that showed that after a year and a half, people got bored with the war on terror & the majority polled said the economy, not the WOT was important. Bush has been working on the economy as well as the war

I dont believe an investigation will do anything but waste taxpayers money. There is NO chance that Congress will ever admit the war in Iraq was malconcieved. First it would prove the French right and secondly it would shame the United States and Britain in entirety. Its just too much discgrace. They Will Find reasoning, even if not weapons.

I am suprised they havent planted something yet. Maybe they just cant pull it off discreetly enough.

Art, weapons aren't the only reasons. Saddam has let millions starve, die & there are mass graves littering the country.

Weapons don't need to be found ot justify this war.

When you start a war with your primary claim being that the opposing country poses an imminent threat because of weapons of mass destruction, yes you do need to find weapons to justify the war.

If your justification for going to war was solely based on the other countries ruler being a bad guy, say so. But then nobody would have wanted to go to war, the international community would not have supported the war and we likely wouldn't have gone to war... because most people tend to avoid war for the sole purpose of changing a leadership you don't like.

Regime change is rather arbitrary, that's why we saw the claims of weapons of mass destruction. That's something concrete the American public and the world can rally around. If it was all based on a lie, whatever benefits might come from deposing Saddam do nothing to justify our position before and during the war. If we can go to war based on lies and deceit, we become an international threat ourselves.

Yes, weapons do need to be found to justify this war. They also need to be found to repair our credibility in the world. If they are not, and if any investigations reveal that there was the level of disinformation as is being reported today, the administration needs to face some harsh consequences.


On a side note, while some of the mass graves are indeed indicative of Saddam's brutality, there are many resulting from the war with Iran in which dead Iraqi soldiers were buried often hurriedly on the spot

There won't be any harsh consequences ABS. Nothing done by this administration deserves them. Nobody ever claimed WMDs were the one and only reason for this battle. That has been shown over and over in other threads. Slanting and spinning and assuming and twisting are all things done all the time in politics. None of 'em is impeachable. We might not like it, but hey, that's what the ballot bos is for. Right?

The best you can hope for is that Bush won't be re-elected. And that is what some might call a 'pipe-dream'.

The only thing that could happen to him concerning this fiasco is tons of nagging voters & congressmen

If they don't find WMD, he wont be seeing 2 terms

Well yeah, actually they do have to be found to justify this war. If they aren't there that would mean either President Bush was misled that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a immediate threat to our allies in the Middle East and eventually to America.

However, just like the efforts to tie Saddam's regime to Al-Qaeda, this search has not been at fruitful.

If there is a credibility gap it's one of The Administration's own making. The President has said:

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

-United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002

"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."

-Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002

"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."
"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. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

-Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002

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

-State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

"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."

Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

Now Bush and his allies want to say, "Well, it doesn't matter. We got rid of Saddam and the Iraqui people are free."

Sorry. You can't have it both ways. Either Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or he didn't. And if he didn't Bush isn't going to get away with accusing critics of engaging in "revisionist history." The history of Bush's own remarks are going to come back and bite him on the butt.

A guy who knows a little about high crimes and misdemeanors is John Dean and he recently wrote, If the Bush administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

This is potentially very serious," said one Congressional aide. "If it's shown we went to war because of intelligence that was 'cooked' by the administration, heads will have to roll -- and not just little heads, big ones."

What should be done with Bush? Personally, I'm all for letting time, circumstances and his own duplicity take their natural course.

I believe there should be an investigation and then impeachment. As far as scandal in the Whitehouse and Impeachment trials go I'm as sick of them as the next person. The last one wore everyone down. But maybe that was the idea...make people sick enough of it and they won't want to do it again and the President can get away with anything. And has it appears.

His own Intelligence and State Department had already investigated and confirmed the claims that Saddam attempted to buy uranium from Africa were forgeries and totally false...even before the rest of the world learned it by El Baradai in his last weapons report before the war.

That didn't stop the info from being submitted to the UN in the first place and it didn't stop Bush from saying in his SOU address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." Recently? His own sources debunked this claim TEN MONTHS before his speech.

If he isn't lying it means the President is so inept he didn't even check out the claim with his own Intelligence who knew it wasn't true, and he didn't mention it to his VP who sent his envoy in the first place to check it out, nor did anyone in the know proof it for him to check for accuracy but instead he alone offered old hearsay as rationale for war to Congress, the nation, and the world. The SOU is a mandatory part of his job. They make a huge deal of it...with tux's and all and it's a President's most widely viewed/heard speech of the year...and when this one was about to declare a war it was even bigger. To put something false in that of all speeches and not know it would be close to impossible.

Even I don't believe he's that stupid. But if he is I want him to admit it under oath.

God forbid anyone would wait for the results of an investigation before they moved on to impeachment.

It never ceases to amaze me how fast the left is to jump to conclusions. They haven't gotten a single thing right since the build-up began. From the eruption on the Arab Street to the additional attacks here at home to the quagmire we were bogged down in on the way to Baghdad to the Vietnam \-like war we'd find to the......on and on.

When the evidence of WMDs is located and presented to the public it will be just another chapter in the 'left always gets it wrong' songbook.

God forbid anyone would wait for the results of an investigation before they moved on to WAR. Bush apologists are in no position to criticize others for jumping to conclusions.

The same should be said for those who say there are no WMD even as only 20% of the country has been searched

Isn't that kind of disingenuous because you clearly have already jumped to a conclusion about whether Iraq as weapons of mass destruction.

You can't impeach someone because they lied. It will be very hard to impeach him because there aren't a swarm of special prosecutors around him trying to get him to commit a crime. Instead of impeachment What about giving him a "Rat Chump of the Year Award"?

I think we all jump to the conclusion they will be found but the results will be nothing like some people fantasize. We will then simply move to the phase where the US now has to prove they didn't plant them. But this administration already knows that's coming and has not addressed it yet. If they want to hand pick a bunch of unknown people to dig around for the weapons instead of allowing the authorized inspectors in to finish their jobs and give some credibility to whatever is found than they deserve the accusations they have and will undoubtedly receive for it. Guess what...if you act suspicious people will respond with suspicion. Weird how that works out.

It's just one more of those things that you know is coming and wonder why it's not being asked before it all blows up so the crybabies can't suddenly act indignant and pretend they're being picked on for no reason.

The fact is US credibility in the world and with many of us here in the US, is lower than it's ever been. And it's not just the 'left wing' who 'always get's it wrong'. If anyone is naive enough to believe that they should go back to watching cartoons. But first they should check out the U.K. and Australia and Canada and France and Russia and everywhere else that has a relatively free press and notice that the left and everyone else would all have to be wrong and a small number of Bush apologists would be the only ones that have it right.