Yes, I was going to say that from many people it is a difference without a distinction. Or is that the other way around?
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?
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.
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? 
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.
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.
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?
Rev:
Thanks for the clarification. I was hoping you didn’t actually mean it, but it sure read that way.
No problem. I can see how it could have been read that way.
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?
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.
And of course I missed the fact that the two of you clarified that just before my own post. Sorry! :o
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.
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.
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?
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.
The legal definition of treason is found in Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, thusly:
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?
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).
Hey, you learn something new every day, right? 
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.