# If Bush lied about WMD in Iraq should he be impeached? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2003, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229 "2003-04-26T01:25:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/21 "2003-04-26T14:17:19Z")
Yes, I was going to say that from many people it is a difference without a distinction. Or is that the other way around? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/22 "2003-04-26T14:17:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*“I think he should not only be removed from office but go to jail. I admit I have no idea if legally even impeachment could be supported.” > > So, what you are saying is that you support putting someone in jail even though you are unsure if any laws were broken. Yikes. And people on this board are scared of Rumsfeld. \*\* What do you think the consequences should be for someone that lies in order to start a war? Would you be content with letting such a person scape through legal loopholes or would you be outraged and ask for reforms? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/23 "2003-04-26T14:27:14Z")
I am not if favor of jailing someone if they did not break any laws. Revtim explicitly said that he was in favor of that action. I find that indefensible. I’m left wondering what Revtim thinks of the “Patriot Act”. Probably doesn’t like it becomes it might jail someone who hadn’t committed a crime. But I’m just guessing. I’d like to hear from Revtim. Ignoring for the sake of argument how you could prove the pres lied, if it were possible to do so I think he should be voted out of office. But, frankly, Bush has said this war is about so many different things, it would be pretty easy to show that at least ONE of those items is true. ---
**Author:** ![lander2k2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@lander2k2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lander2k2)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/24 "2003-04-26T14:54:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*I am not if favor of jailing someone if they did not break any laws. Revtim explicitly said that he was in favor of that action. I find that indefensible. I’m left wondering what Revtim thinks of the “Patriot Act”. Probably doesn’t like it becomes it might jail someone who hadn’t committed a crime. But I’m just guessing. I’d like to hear from Revtim. > > Ignoring for the sake of argument how you could prove the pres lied, if it were possible to do so I think he should be voted out of office. But, frankly, Bush has said this war is about so many different things, it would be pretty easy to show that at least ONE of those items is true. \*\* Didn’t break any laws? Is conspiracy to murder no longer against the law? Remember that little incident where Bush ordered the bombing of a building where Saddam was thought to be? Oh, yeah, sorry….I forgot. Saddam is said to be an evil dictator so the laws don’t apply there. Maybe thinking with the principles of the law instead of specific statutes would help. Is a man who sets in motion events which result in the deaths of thousands, knowing full well that those deaths will occur, immune from the law. Hitler wasn’t. Milosevic wasn’t. I guess if they had have won their wars they would have been, eh. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/25 "2003-04-26T15:30:13Z")
Well the OP kinda begs the question: if Bush has been lying about Iraq has he in fact broken the law? Is the State of the Union Address not required to be factual? If the president makes ill-founded or outright false claims in the SOtU address is he breaching Art.II sec3 and thus his oath of office? If he ordered underlings to misrepresent findings to the congress are there no laws against it? In other words if Bush purposely and methodically lied would it be so difficult to come up with actual charges? Any lawyers in the house? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/26 "2003-04-26T15:59:39Z")
If any attorneys do show up I would be curious to know what the legal definition of treason is. The dictionary has the definition _first_ as a betrayal of trust and second as an attampt to overthrow the government to which the person owes allegiance. The President of the US most certainly is a person who holds the public trust and lying to the public in such a grand fashion as this thread posits would seem to be a breach of that trust of the first magnitude. I realize that it is likely every President has lied about something or other to the public and you can’t lay treason charges on all of them but I would think somewhere a line is drawn and wherever that line may be I think lying to draw the country into war would (or should) certainly be over that line. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/27 "2003-04-26T16:04:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*“I think he should not only be removed from office but go to jail. I admit I have no idea if legally even impeachment could be supported.” > > So, what you are saying is that you support putting someone in jail even though you are unsure if any laws were broken.\*\* No. What I meant was I think if Bush lied to get us into a war, he morally deserves impeachment and jail, and I hope there’s laws that would apply but I don’t know if there is. I didn’t mean to imply he should go jail if there were no laws broken. As much as I would want him to go to jail, I believe in rule of law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/28 "2003-04-26T16:08:50Z")
Lander: “Didn’t break any laws? Is conspiracy to murder no longer against the law?” You are completely missing the point of my protest. Someone earlier stated a view that he should go to jail **even if no laws were broken**. You come back with: “well he DID break laws”. Can you not see the difference between those two statements? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/29 "2003-04-26T16:23:08Z")
Rev: Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping you didn’t actually mean it, but it sure read that way. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/30 "2003-04-26T16:34:15Z")
No problem. I can see how it could have been read that way. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/31 "2003-04-26T18:59:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by brianmelendez \* > Maybe so, but he was not impeached for those acts. The [articles of impeachment](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/treatise/andrew_johnson/chap_07.htm#articles) all related to President Johnson ousting Secretary of War Stanton and thereby violating the Tenure of Office act. The articles do not even mention bribery. Right – just like “Clinton was not impeached for getting a blowjob.” But honestly I had never heard of the bribery and pardons before. Might I have a cite, please, **Isiddiqui**? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **John Mace** , quoting **Revtim** , with additional portion of **Revtim** ’s post supplied in brackets by **Polycarp** _ > “[IMO if proof is found that Bush lied about any war justification, or knew the Niger Uranium proof was bogus while still touting it as justification (or had a hand in its creation),] I think he should not only be removed from office but go to jail. I admit I have no idea if legally even impeachment could be supported.” > > So, what you are saying is that you support putting someone in jail even though you are unsure if any laws were broken. Yikes. And people on this board are scared of Rumsfeld. I think **Revtim** ’s conditional sentence is clear enough, **John** – **If** it’s proven that, say, Pat Robertson sodomized and torture-murdered a long string of little girls, he should be not only denounced from every pulpit in America but thrown in jail for life. (Granted, nobody has ever even hinted that he might do such a thing!) **Revtim** is saying that **if** Mr. Bush is guilty of illegal Act X, he should both be impeached and convicted (and thus thrown out of office) but then tried and imprisoned for committing it. And there is some evidence pointing to his possible complicity in such an act – not enough at present to prove it to the satisfaction of a court, I would assume. If-then sentences are fairly common usage around here; I presume that you simply missed the “if proof is found” condition on which his predication was founded. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/32 "2003-04-26T19:00:52Z")
And of course I missed the fact that the two of you clarified that just before my own post. Sorry! :o ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/33 "2003-04-26T19:07:59Z")
Polycarp: No, you’re wrong. You would’ve been correct had the statment been “if crimes were committed”, but the statement was “if x was done… and I’m not sure if x is illegal”. Very, very different. There was never any claim that “x” was illegal-- in fact the implication was that “x” **wasn’t** illegal. WRT your analogy: Lying is not a crime. Sodomizing little girls is a crime. But we’re nitpicking, here. Revtim already said he saw how I could’ve misinterpreted his post. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/34 "2003-04-26T19:20:30Z")
IANAL. However, it seems to me a case could be made that Bush violated the UN Charter, which is treated as a treaty of the US, and covered by the Constitution. That said, I would not support any impeachment action for the offense as described. Let the voters settle it at the ballot box. With the precedent of the Republicans prosecution (or was it persecution) of Clinton, I think the Democrats would be well within reason. Nonetheless, I thought that was a travesty, and I think this would be as well. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/35 "2003-04-26T19:24:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Polycarp: > > No, you’re wrong. You would’ve been correct had the statment been “if crimes were committed”, but the statement was “if x was done… and I’m not sure if x is illegal”. Very, very different. There was never any claim that “x” was illegal-- in fact the implication was that “x” **wasn’t** illegal. WRT your analogy: Lying is not a crime. Sodomizing little girls is a crime. > > But we’re nitpicking, here. Revtim already said he saw how I could’ve misinterpreted his post. \*\* Thanks for the clarification – I’d missed that point myself. However, may I quote this portion of your post – "WRT your analogy: Lying is not a crime. " – the next time a thread about Clinton’s impeachment comes up? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/36 "2003-04-26T19:30:07Z")
Polycarp: I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!! 🙂 Had I been a smarter guy I would’ve gone with my instinct on that one and clarified “lying under oath”. But I didn’t, and you got me. Touche. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/37 "2003-04-26T20:10:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*If any attorneys do show up I would be curious to know what the legal definition of treason is. The dictionary has the definition _first_ as a betrayal of trust and second as an attampt to overthrow the government to which the person owes allegiance. The President of the US most certainly is a person who holds the public trust and lying to the public in such a grand fashion as this thread posits would seem to be a breach of that trust of the first magnitude. I realize that it is likely every President has lied about something or other to the public and you can’t lay treason charges on all of them but I would think somewhere a line is drawn and wherever that line may be I think lying to draw the country into war would (or should) certainly be over that line. \*\* The legal definition of treason is found in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, thusly: > [@](#): > > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Whatever your opinion of President Bush, he most certainly did NOT levy war _against_ the United States, nor did he give aid and comfort to her enemies. In other words, what the heck are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/38 "2003-04-26T21:04:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by milroyj \* > \*\*In other words, what the heck are you talking about? \*\* Apparently the constitutional version of what constitutes treason is very different from the dictionary definition of treason. As I mentioned I did not know the legal definition of treason and now I do so thanks for that. Obviously GWB is light years away from treason as defined in the Constitution so no issue although if it is proved he lied to lead the US into war then I think he might fit the dictionary definition (not that that is useful in any way as far a the law is concerned). ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/39 "2003-04-26T21:13:58Z")
Hey, you learn something new every day, right? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229/40 "2003-04-26T22:35:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RedFury \* > What do you think the consequences should be for someone that lies in order to start a war? He should be voted out of office at the first valid opportunity, then mocked and vilified by people through the ages as a Grade-A Nincompoop, with his family name besmirched for generations unto end. Benedict Arnold and Joe McCarthy could use the company anyway. Oh, and yeah, reforms should be passed to prevent a repeat of the fiasco. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-in-iraq-should-he-be-impeached/171229.md?page=3)