Worse than Watergate?

[Nash]

From:
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By JOHN W. DEAN

Worse than Watergate? A Potential Huge Scandal If WMDs Are Still Missing

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. 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.

As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

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."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

[_Schadenfreude_]

If you're interested in politics then we certainly live in interesting times - much the same is happening on our side of the pond - was amazed to see the cost will be 3.8 billion per MONTH!!

Remember to vote folks - best thing about voting is making a politician lose his job!!

[Lance]

I don't see how this is going to be worse than Watergate.  The President had blank check authority from congress and strong support from the people to do what he did long before the case for war was made.  You may see an inquiry and a demonstration that some of the intelligence was wrong, but I don't think there is any way they could prove the administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence regarding Iraq.  You already have the CIA falling on the sword regarding the bogus intelligence that showed Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials from Africa.  

I don't want an impeachment, just a voteworthy democrat candidate.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Lance
I don't see how this is going to be worse than Watergate.  The President had blank check authority from congress and strong support from the people to do what he did long before the case for war was made.

Congress' Joint Resolution for the use of military force in Iraq was made on the 2nd of October, 2002. I think you'll find that much of the "case for war", as erroneous as it's now turning out to be, had been laid out by the Bush administration prior to this (including Bush's September address to the UN)... and that you'll no doubt be hearing some say that their vote was swayed by it.

If there were to be an investigation, I'm not sure to what extent the CIA could collectively fall on their swords if even they wanted to. It would not be too difficult, I imagine, to learn what information was known by whom and when, and if this information ultimately jibed with the case that the administration put before the congress, the public and the world.

[GrimCO]

It's embarrassing is what it is.

[firbal]

I think to compare this with Watergate is not in the same class. Watergate had the President running illegal operations against the Dem's to get information.
The war in Iraq is a whole differant thing. We all know that S.M. was up to no good. He had WMDs, at the very least in the past. And he has used them also. He also tried to kill Pres. Bush (41) after he left office when he was visiting the Middle East. And on & on. Now clearly he stated in his speach that through British intell that he was triing to buy stuff for his nuke program. So now what, do you believe your intell from a friend, who has a very good service or not? I think the problem I has with this whole problem is that our intell service is lacking in alot of ways. They have proven unreliable in the information they have given to our top leaders. So now we don't believe them when the next time they come up with something? Possibly. It's to that point now. But I think alot of our problem goes back to the '70s when they fired all our field agents. Our leadership back then didn't like the CIA. So they cut them down thought that high tech was the way to go. Now we'er paying that price now.

[Sandman]

Impeachment is a trial.


Bring it on. It's a far more important issue than Clinton's dick.

[Yeager]

Lying under oath about ANYTHING, let alone his cock, should have landed that assloader in prison.

WMDs existed in Iraq prior to the military excercise.  Keep trying you pudknockers.  Keep trying.

[Bodhi]

It really is disgusting that the democrats have to manufacture half truths, quote out of context, and generally lie to get anything  done.  Let's hope they can get into office again and raise government social programs to support the "do nothings", expand foreign aid to further sponsor terrorism, remove all aspects of our founding father's vision for this country, and stifle us with continued big government.  

Someday, I really hope these blind eyed liberals open their eyes.  Until then, I will try to say a prayer for them.

[funkedup]

Don't be silly Nash.  Nixon got busted because he misused government agencies to commit illegal acts, namely the Watergate B&E.  Nobody has come even close to demonstrating that anything done in Iraq was illegal.

[Pongo]

20 lies

too bad the Democrats could never get elected by showing the US public how stupid and dangerous they are.

[MrLars]

The feeble minds of HTC's NG will not settle this, let the upcomming investigation run it's course. If missdeeds are uncovered then let the law handle it. Whether we were duped or not will not be decided here, let the law makers make the decision to prosecute if the facts prove any wrongdoing.

Our little NG hasn't all the facts nor the temperment to decide who is right or wrong on this issue.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Bodhi
It really is disgusting that the democrats have to manufacture half truths, quote out of context...

We can just leave it to the current administration to lie straight out.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Yeager
Lying under oath about ANYTHING, let alone his cock, should have landed that assloader in prison.

WMDs existed in Iraq prior to the military excercise.  Keep trying you pudknockers.  Keep trying.

It's not enough that they existed. The administration claimed that they threatened the U.S.

IMHO, the State of the Union address might as well be an oath to the citizens of this country.

Oh... and Clinton was acquitted.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It's not enough that they existed. The administration claimed that they threatened the U.S.

[/b]
And indeed it can be argued that by existing, they were such a threat.

IMHO, the State of the Union address might as well be an oath to the citizens of this country.

Yeah, well thats just your opinion. Even if we assume that he was intentionally lying (which he was not) there is a difference between lying under oath, and lying when saying something you feel should be equal to an oath.