Simple question for conservatives and liberals

[razap]

Now please take this question without party affiliation. When I pose this I want you to take it as a hypothetical rather than in a literal sense. This goes along with the 'pre-emption premise'.

If a president (any president) knowingly misled the country to war would that be impeachable? Now I want to to clarify misleading. If a President used information that could not be verified as justification for war should he use it? If a president ignored information that contradicted the intelligence used to base reason for war? Should the President give all information to the people? If he was told that evidence by his foremost experts could not be used for nuclear intentions yet it (the information) still is used for reason to have to go to war wrong?


My problem with the war was that I felt the President misled me. He used certain information (nuclear tubes) that he was told could not be used for nuclear proliferation weapons yet he did anyway. A US Atomic scientist was interviewed on 60 Minutes after the invasion and he emphatically stated that there are only a handful of people in the world with enough knowledge to indentify and use these types of tubes for wmds. He said that these tubes could not be used for nuclear weapons. Yet this was a part of the justification of pre-emptively striking Iraq.

There is other contradicting information that the President used for his reason to pre-emptively strike Iraq.

I am trying to explain why I distrust the President. Now I know I am going to be bombarded with questions such as " Are we better of without Saddam" Are we safer?..etc.. This is why I have tried to ask the original question without any type of partisan bias. Let's be honest and admit that the reason why we went to war has evolved. My last question is that if we were going to try and implant democracy in the middle east as a way to fight terror then why was this not used along with other the newer reasons prior to the war? We have almost forgotten why we were told why we had to go in when we did.



I ask these questions without trying to provoke anyone and I tried to at least give a specific reason (along with others I did not mention) why I felt misled. Thoughts?

[seal614]

I can answer this... if you read your questions straight up my answer is

Yes, -purposely- misleading a nation to war against a foreign entity (threatening or not) is impeachable. At least I would say so, I don't know what the law dictates.

I will also say that the President should NOT give all the information on a particular problem/etc... to ALL the people. There are so many people in this country that would not be able to deal w/half the information (emotionally etc...) that the president gets hit with many times a day. This is why we are not all presidents... there are some heavy heavy decisions involved with the job and many citizens are less than able to make such a decision.

On the Nuclear tubes... this may have been a primary reason, but there are many others.

I WILL agree that the reason to go to war has "evolved" in that certain justifications are rising to the surface now... BUT they could have been equally effective justifications back when the decision was made.

For example, Bush could have stressed how evil Saddam was etc... but was spending the majority of his emphasis/reasons on the more immediate threats (according to international intelligence). I think he could've mounted an equally persuasive case against the regime itself as opposed to its nuclear capabilities etc...

- Brian

[edit] if you distrust the president based on his decision to go to war, I think you are misplacing your distrust. Perhaps you could focus it on the the CIA, or a number of foreign intelligence agencies... Bush did not sit in a room by himself and come up with ideas of WHY we should invade Iraq... he had plenty being thrown in his face and made an educated decision based on domestic and foreign intelligence. I would be wary of the source of that evidence, not the guy who looked at it like everybody else did.

[chumdawg]

I do hope you find some peace with this difficult question, razap. My recommendation, in a general sense, would be that you seek out knowledge on your own, so that you don't rely solely on the word of politicians. Try not to put yourself in a position where later you will feel that you were gullible.

Also try to open your mind a little. If you feel that someone has misled you, try to understand why. Take in as much information as you can so that you can see the entire picture. Don't be manipulated into thinking so narrowly on only one element of a much larger story.

So perhaps you can extend your range of hypothetical questions. Imagine that the Commander in Chief determines it is necessary to go to war. But that a number of elements exist within your country that will conspire against you in your effort to make your case before your countrymen. Do you bow to those elements and opt not to fight a war that you believe is necessary? Do you risk the security of your nation because of of these elements that conspire against you?

Interesting questions, hypothetical though they may be.

[Dooby]

I'll answer this question simply. It is the same response that I used when discussing Clinton. Granted, my opinion is one that is pretty extreme and does not reflect that of prob. 90% of the country.

One can be impeached under the constitution for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which is a term that is undefined. Regardless, there are those that say it did have a specific definition at the time the constitution was written, but in reality all of that is irrelevant.

An impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. You cannot appeal an impeachment. There is no procedural error. The decision in every way is final. Though, even if convicted, the President is only removed. He still must be tried in a criminal court before being placed in jail or fined or any other form of punishment. Thus, murder is an impeachable offense; slander is an impeachable offense; Jaywalking is an impeachable offense.

Once the President has lost the confidence of the american people to the point where he lacks the capacity to effectively govern, he must be replaced and impeachment is the only mechanism to acheive that.

By that definition, I suppose "misled the country to war" is an impeachable offense.

I am not going to rehash this, but I really question whether Bush did "mislead the country to war". Regardless, it is impossible to argue that the President has lost the confidence of the american people to the point where he lacks the capacity to effectively govern.

Your specific follow up questios were:

If a President used information that could not be verified as justification for war should he use it?

Goes to the fundamental nature of intelligence and the definition of "verified". Nothing can be verified 100%. It is totally unrealistic to expect otherwise. Did we ever verify that there were nuclear weapons on Cuba? I can certainly make an argument we did not. This guy was the President and he was satisfied to the best of his ability that there were WMD in Iraq, and if you don't like it, you had a choice on November 5, 2000 to do something about it. You have that choice again in less than 2 weeks; go nuts.

If a president ignored information that contradicted the intelligence used to base reason for war?

Goes to the fundamental nature of intelligence and the definition of "contradict". Can a jury ignore evidence that contradicts evidence that is used to convict a person of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course they can. Should they? Of course.

Should the President give all information to the people?

No. The President is the President. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. The only the decision that the american people are entitled to make under the constition occurs on the first tuesday after the first monday in November every four years. To the degree the President chooses to inform the American people of the basis for his decision-making, it is his privilege and not yours. Contrary to popular belief, we live in a democratic republic or a representative democracy (depends on your point of view) and not a democracy.

Now, if he lied to congress, that is another matter. Congress controls the purse strings. Only Congress can declare war (BTW, technically we are not at war).

If he was told that evidence by his foremost experts could not be used for nuclear intentions yet it (the information) still is used for reason to have to go to war wrong?

There is something wrong with this sentence that makes it unclear. But to answer what I think you are asking, it goes back to the "contradict" issue, doesn't it?

Nevertheless, I don't believe the President lied to anyone. He had intelligence and acted on it. He believed it. BTW, Clinton (both), Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Albright, Daschle, Gephart, etc. Everyone believed the same intelligence when they looked at it. Now, despite what Michael Moore says, just because you believe something to be true that later turns out to be false, doesn't mean it is a lie. Bush acted on intelligence he believed in. Now, that makes him wrong. It might even make him reckless. But that doesn't make him a liar.