X~Slayer(ALE): No, that’s NOT what I’m asking. I’m wondering what could happen to a sitting president that lies. To the public. In the State of the Union Address. And starts a war, where americans die.
The question is specifically about Bush, as he is what prompted the question.
How much has it changed?
July 11, 2003 06:48:35 version said this:
July 11, 2003 07:33:45 says this:
I’m not sharp enough to find the material differences. Could you please point them out to me?
Is there some other version that I just can’t find?
Gee that would be nearly every president after Abe Lincoln and even a few before him.
OK that makes it every president after Washington.
The state of the union address is not done under oath. Its a report on what happened since that last time he made an accounting. Its more of a speech made to congress.
aahh now to the nitty gritty:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html states:
*
SEC. 2. (a)
It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
*
So if war was made, the Congress is equally culpable since they allowed the president broad leeway on what to do in Iraq which included military action. You gotta ask how one president was able to fool those hundreds of people. If they can prove Bush did willfully lie to the congress in that context then impeachment and removal of office is quite possible.
uhmm thats what war does. at least the ones americans get into.
see?? using quotes wasnt that hard. Just preview 
“What else can happen to him besides impeachment?”
He could persuaded to do an LBJ and not run for a second term. I think this is quite possible if the situation in Iraq deteriorates and if the scandal about WMD intelligence stays alive. And though it’s not directly connected the economy is also in there in the equation. If it stays sluggish that will weaken Bush further.
If I were a Bush supporter I would be rather worried about his poll numbers in the next six months. They are already dropping rather quickly:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44786-2003Jul11.html?nav=hptop_tb
I wonder if Tenet is taking responsibility for this in order to raise his own credibility. The 9/11 reports are coming out in a few weeks and they will probably be bigger than this.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6269252.h
Perhaps Tenet didn’t think that this was that important.
And ultimately it is Tenet’s responsibility. Even if Bush Administration people were willing to include that line the CIA should not have dropped its objections. Of course that doesn’t help Bush very much.
From what I’ve seen, neither Bush nor any of the key members of his staff have told lies. They said some misleading things, but what was actually said wasn’t untrue.
Take the SoTU comment we’re discussing here.
This is not a lie. Even if the British government later, but still before the SoTU speech, learned better. The Brit gov has learned it. It has now learned better.
In Cinci, Bush said that he wass concerned about Iraqi UAVs striking the US. Now, the Iraqi airforce isn’t who springs to mind when you think puissant air power. But there test flights were with MiGs fitted with sprayer tanks for anthrax. Lots of problems with th tests. Little chance of an Iraqi MiG finding its way to the US, let alone penetrating our airspace. But, all that Bush said was that it “concerned” him.
this another “not-lie.”
Well maybe, but the burden of proof to show that Bush wasn’t “concerned” is so prohibitively great that there’s little chance of it being a lie.
What the Bush admin has done is use a number of “not-lies” to create an impression.
“Not-lying” is an ancient and time-honored tradition among politicians, advertisers and the Devil in fairy-tales.
Iwill get to the OP. I promise. But first…
One must, of course, recognize the difficulty inherent in presenting a case to friend Scyllas satisfaction. Nothing short of a confession written in blood (his own, Cheney’s, whatever) will suffice. But lets be reasonable (which is to say, lets agree with me…)
We have focused rather intensely on this one incident, and reasonably so, in my estimation. Making a case for war in such a setting as the State of the Union Address is rather a more serious setting than a few offhanded remarks during a photo op.
The statements were false. This is undeniable and undenied. We have the testimony of Mr. Powell that between the SOTU and his own speech, he determined, after review, that these accusations were not adequately vetted for inclusion in his UN speech. There are several things decidedly odd about this.
Firstly, other accusations and inferences that are not entirely credible were included in that speech, which have been exhaustively explored here. Suffice to say that the “Niger accusations” did not rise to the level of balderdash that Mr. Powell required.
So: between point A and point B, the utter integrity of the “Niger stuff” had degraded to the point where Mr. Powell did not feel comfortable including them even as he included the “aluminum tubes” tommyrot. A matter of days, as I recall. Rather a precipitous plunge in confidence, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
As I age, my memory fails. Refresh my memory, friend Scylla, as to exactly what point in time the “Niger” was retracted by this President so anxioius to maintain complete and utter integrity. Of course, a man so deeply devoted to truth as to justify your unshakeable confidence would rush to correct any misapprehension, would he not? If any element of his case should prove weak, we would be instantly advised, yes?
So when did this happen? As I said, I seem to have forgotten…
Come to think of it, that brings up another rather…awkward moment. No doubt you will recall when Fearless Misleader waved those IAEA reports in the air, with those deathless words, “I don’t know what more proof you need!” Clear and irrefutable evidence offered as to the complete urgency of an invasion. A report which, it turns out, simply did not exist.
Friend Scylla’s paragon of candor surely must have rushed to the podium to clarify this misunderstanding, so that no even the merest hint of mendacity might stain this noble undertaking.
And yet, once again, I fail to recall. Perhaps a reminder, if you’ve the time…
Which, of course, brings us to Poland. And the Mobile Labs of Nuclear Anthrax. Absolute state of the art miniaturization, truly astounding evidence of heretofore unknown Iraqi technology. Well, there were quibbles, tiresome conjectures, but of course thats the trouble with quibbles. Experts, presumably acting in good faith, called into question the identification of these derelict 18-wheelers as weapons of mobile destruction. And had done so before GeeDubya publicly declared in Warsaw that these piles of scrap iron were irrefutable proof.
Did he not know that his favored interpretation had been called into question? Was he not briefed? Doesn’t read the papers, lips tire too quickly?
Or are we forced to the conclusion that he simply ignored that which did not support his case? Yes, I believe we are, unless some other plausible explanation can be offered. He himself did not offer such an explanation, unless, of course, memory fails.
Did Fearless Misleader lie? No. But he has exhibited a pattern of presenting only that which lends credence to his arguments, even under such circumstances as would compel a reasonable man to doubt. I expect more from a President. Frankly, I expect more from a junior high school guidance counselor.
Impeachment? Not a chance, given the make up of our Congress, roughly divided between whores, cowards and poltroons. And the occassional lickspittle.
It will have to be enough to hope for, that the American people see him for what he is: the living embodiment of the Peter Principle gone mad, a mediocrity raised far above his talents and even farther above his principles. Such as they are.
The changes were pointed out on page 1, towards the bottom. Click page one and look towards the bottom. You can do that. I beleive in you. Don’t make me cut and paste. You wouldn’t like me when I cut and paste. M’kay?
The first reference that I see to CBS’ story is **CyberPundit
**'s on page two.
What ever are you talking about? 
Rtf:
Ok, I pondered your post while mowing the lawn.
What is wrong with your conjecture is that that’s all it is. You have taken a series of facts and circumstances, and speculated on a scenario that might account for them. There is nothing wrong with trying to do that. However your scenario doesn’t qualify as anything but speculation as long as there are other equally plausible scenarios that tie the facts together just as well.
Your preferred scenario (feel free to correct if I paraphrase badly,) is that Bush’s failure to secure suspected WMD sites indicates he was not worried about them, and therefore lying about the threat level these WMDs represented.
A second scenario is incompetance on the part of Rumsfeld which did not allow the commanders the resources necessary to accomplish the duel goals of sacking Baghdad and securing suspected WMD cites. This would also indicate a lack of concern over the WMDs and by extension, indicate a disingenuous stance concerning the threat with respect to the American public.
The prblem is that you present this as a conclusion prematurely. There are other plausible possibilites that do not draw what seems to be your preffered conclusion.
Bush cared very much about the WMD cites, but delegated the task to his military leaders who dropped the ball.
They had everything they needed to accomplish both tasks but didn’t find Jack Squat.
Iraq fell with less resistance than anticipated. The rolling deployment had provisions for securing the sites, but it was deemed that pressing the advantage as hard as they could was the better course of action than slowing down, and securing the sites but also allowing the Iraqis time to consolidate their defenses.
Other than your hypothesis that all the WMD cites were looted, there is the alternate hypothesis that simply blew the shit out of anything that had the remote possibility of being a WMD cite before they moved on.
There is also the possibility for other scenarios and combinations of things that you or I haven’t thought of.
Any of these is as plausible as your scenario.
Simon X:
December’s blog cite, which is confirmed from my own experience, and triple confirmed by the Dyogenes pit thread.
Scylla, for some reason my response to you was delivered to the aether, a risk we share in common, I think.
Look, man, I don’t want this to happen; it is the very worst thing that can happen to my country and yours. But if it happened, if… The ramifications will make us question–yet again–the very precepts upon which our nation is based. And if it turns out to be true–which I doubt will ever be positively established–it is a catastrophe which so eclipses precedent that it will never be resolved rationally. But there might be a tinge of justice: just as the fellow entered, so shall he leave.
And I’m sorry for the cheap shot.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yojimbo *
**There are GD and pit threads about if he lied. This thread is about If Bush Lied, Then What?
[QUOTE]
Here is an excellent legal article about this very issue: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
Relevant Excerpt:
ARGH! Please ignore my previous, badly coded post.
Here is an excellent legal article about this very issue: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
Relevant Excerpt:
If Bush lied, a Congressional investigation should be able to establish that he lied. (My understanding is that there are perhaps four different committees in Congress that are investigating. If it is determined that he lied, I would hope that the consequences of that lie (or those lies) would be evaluated. Beyond the immeasurable horror of the unnecessary deaths of human beings in what is perhaps a trumped up war, I would think that Congress would examine possible profit motives (among many other issues). The contracts to Halliburton oil would certainly come into question. If a direct connection could be made to Administrative officials profitting from the war, it is conceivable that any responsible officials could be charged not only with war profiteering but even racketeering. They could be impeached and imprisoned. (I am skeptical about imprisonment after the Ford pardon of Nixon.)
That is one possible scenario.
From the time of the Watergate break-in until the resignation of President Nixon was about twenty-six months.
One question that I have is whether or not Congress will pursue this to that point. Our country has such enormous economic problems to deal with. Can we afford to have the country split in such a time of crisis? On the other hand, can we afford not to do anything with the country in such crisis?
Those of you who have asked for reliable sources and cites are blatantly unreasonable in your objections to the cites given here and elsewhere. No matter what is posted as a cite, it is obvious that you will ridicule or challenge it.
As for the Washington Post’s credibility, like every newspaper they have made mistakes. But when so many sources are in support of information in the Washington Post, the information begins to have more credibility. Keep in mind, also, that less than thirty years ago the Washington Post brought down a Presidency for something that doesn’t hold a candle to the potential of this situation.
I have tried to be objective in accessing what I think might happen. That is only one scenario.
But on a more personal note, I would like to add that I hope they nail those mean-spirited, greedy, lying, vengeful, coniving, self-enamored, power-mad, maniacal son-of-bitches who are responsible for the slaughter our daughters and sons and who, for their own intents and purposes are undermining the Constitution of the United States..
Don’t hold it back, Zoe, how do you really feel?
I would be appreciative if some one would clearly and concisely explain the substantive difference between:
Sadam is trying to buy uranium from Africa, and
The British tell me that Sadam is trying to buy uranium from Africa,
When the second statement is advanced to persuade that Sadam is trying to buy uranium from Africa? When you have doubts about the first statement and you have the same doubts about the reliability of the British report, why aren’t the two statements substantively the same? Both are an attempt to mislead the listener into thinking that Sadam is in fact and without question trying to buy uranium from Africa.
How is this any different than “I did not have sex with that woman?” Why is this not a cheap and transparent fraud?
You will no doubt be relieved to know that Fearless Misleader has “moved on”.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq&cid=544&ncid=716
“Bush considers the matter closed, said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. “The president has moved on,” he said”
So there. That’s all sorted out, then. Nothing to see here, you looky loos. Move along. Mistakes were made. No hurt, no foul. Have you seen the video of Jessica Lynch toppling Saddam’s statue? Here’s another picture of The Leader jutting out his chin in manly defiance. Here’s a picture of a young life needlessly squandered… Wait, gimme that back. You didn’t see that. The President has moved on.
Go back to sleep.
It’s a “not-lie.”
Perfectly truthful.
Wonderfully misleading.
Ancient political tradition.
It seems to me that the interesting question now is when, in view of the following:
The Niger uranium story as recited in the State of the Union address has been conceded to have been bogus,
The Aluminum tubes story has been exposed as bogus (it was almost immediately attacked as bogus in these boards,
There has been no credible information presented before the public that there was any sort of meaningful connection between Iraq and Osama’s gang of pathological thugs,
No WMDs, not even forensic traces, have turned up in Iraq,
will the President gather up his vaunted integrity by directly and unambiguously tell the American people that the reasons given in the State of the Union Address were at least debatable and, at least in part, based on questionable information?
The rule taught when I was a government employee, albeit one whose sole duty amounted to wandering around the world wearing a green suit and carrying a rifle, was that authority could be delegated but responsibility could not.
When does the President in his capacity as the single elected official who is supposed to be chosen by the whole people, who has repeatedly told us that he and he alone is the commander in chief of all the armed forces of the nation, who nominates all the cabinet officers, who has the power to hire and fire the chief of the CIA, who is the principal magistrate of the whole people, who exercises the power of pit and indefinite incarceration, actually going to stand up on his hind legs and say that the whole thing is his responsibility, his and no one else’s?
The President promised a restoration of honor–now is the time to put up or shut up. I expect to see that happen right after Hell freezes over and pigs fly.