# Serious question: Why didn't Bush face impeachment over Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 20, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224 "2014-06-20T17:41:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/41 "2014-06-22T19:49:08Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > At the time, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. Wrong, flatly wrong. The majority of us did _not_. The UN inspectors were just two weeks away from concluding and reporting that, making it imperative for Bush to start his war within that time frame, which he did. > [@](#): > > we did find WMDs after the invasion Either you left out a “not”, or you have access to some information that no one else does. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/42 "2014-06-22T20:13:13Z")
Impeachment impeashment, he should be tried for treason. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/43 "2014-06-22T20:13:35Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > There were no false pretenses. At the time, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. We know he had used them on his own people, and we did find WMDs after the invasion, but nowhere near the number that everyone thought he had. As Elvis pointed out, not everyone believed it. There were people saying there were no active WMD programs in Iraq. But I’ll admit it. I believed it at the time. I thought Iraq had active WMD programs in 2003 and I supported the invasion. But here’s the big point. I had no direct knowledge of the facts. The reason I believed there were active WMD program in Iraq was because President Bush said there were. I accepted the idea that he had access to more information than I had and he had evidence that what he was saying was true. And that’s true for most of the people who supported the invasion. We did it because we believed Bush. But there were no active WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. Which means Bush could not have had credible evidence that there were. He either intentionally lied or he was massively incompetent. Either way, he demonstrated he was not fit to be President. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/44 "2014-06-22T20:44:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As Elvis pointed out, not everyone believed it. There were people saying there were no active WMD programs in Iraq. > > But I’ll admit it. I believed it at the time. I thought Iraq had active WMD programs in 2003 and I supported the invasion. > > But here’s the big point. I had no direct knowledge of the facts. The reason I believed there were active WMD program in Iraq was because President Bush said there were. I accepted the idea that he had access to more information than I had and he had evidence that what he was saying was true. > > And that’s true for most of the people who supported the invasion. We did it because we believed Bush. > > But there were no active WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. Which means Bush could not have had credible evidence that there were. He either intentionally lied or he was massively incompetent. Either way, he demonstrated he was not fit to be President. WMD’s was total, absolute BS. If this was even partially true, we would have invaded North Korea 10 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/45 "2014-06-22T21:32:12Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Either you left out a “not”, or you have access to some information that no one else does. No, this was reported in the press. It’s been cited more than once; another won’t do any good. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But there were no active WMD programs in Iraq in 2003. Which means Bush could not have had credible evidence that there were. The Rockefeller inquiry found that the notion that Saddam had a WMD program was “generally supported by the evidence”. Also cited more than once. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/46 "2014-06-23T04:59:28Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The Rockefeller inquiry found that the notion that Saddam had a WMD program was “generally supported by the evidence”. Also cited more than once. Generally supported by the evidence, huh? I bet you were thinking nobody would go check your claim, weren’t you? Wrong. Because the Rockefeller inquiry actually found the exact opposite of what you’re saying. Here’s the first paragraph of their conclusions: > [@](#): > > Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. And it wasn’t the fault of the intelligence agencies: > [@](#): > > In the months before the production of the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 Estimate, Administration officials undertook a relentless public campaign which repeatedly characterized the Iraq weapons of mass destruction program in more ominous and threatening terms than the Intelligence community analysis substantiated. Similarly, public statements of senior officials on Iraqi links to terrorism generally, and al-Qaeda specifically were often based on a selective release of intelligence information that implied a cooperative, operational relationship that the Intelligence community did not believe existed. The report details how the intelligence community found no substantial evidence of Iraqi WMD programs. But the Bush administration kept ordering them to keep looking until they found some evidence. Here’s [the report](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?browsePath=108/SRPT/%5b300%3b399%5d&granuleId=CRPT-108srpt301&packageId=CRPT-108srpt301). You have to access it as a PDF file. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/47 "2014-06-23T08:45:48Z")
> [@snowthx](#): > > Was anyone ever punished for any of this? Just so future politicians think more than twice before trying any of the shit Bush and company pulled-off. “This” being _what_? “Starting an unwise war” isn’t a crime, and the Constitution prohibits members of Congress from being arrested or otherwise punished anything they say in session or vote for. > [@Superhal](#): > > Impeachment impeashment, he should be tried for treason. When did Bush ever levy war against the United States or adhere to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort? ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/48 "2014-06-23T08:54:09Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > When did Bush ever levy war against the United States or adhere to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort? Nice try with the straw man. Revealing an active spy’s identity (Valerie Plame) is treason. Starting a war under false pretenses and essentially murdering thousands of young Americans should be. Fixing elections is also a serious crime, if not treason. War profiteering is definitely treason. There’s probably full lists at dailykos, I know a few popped up right after the 2006 elections. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/49 "2014-06-23T09:02:26Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Nice try with the straw man. Revealing an active spy’s identity (Valerie Plame) is treason. 1. Prove that Bush had anything to do with “revealing an active spy’s identity”. 2. Even if he had done so, it wouldn’t be a crime for him to do it because of executive privilege. 3. “Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, providing them aid and comfort.” Do you consider the US Constitution to be a strawman? > [@](#): > > S. Fixing elections is also a serious crime, if not treason. War profiteering is definitely treason. 1. Prove that Bush ever fixed an election. 2. Prove that Bush ever engaged in profiteering. 3. Vote-rigging and war profiteering aren’t treason anyway; see above. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/50 "2014-06-23T09:24:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > 1. Prove that Bush had anything to do with “revealing an active spy’s identity”. > > 2. Even if he had done so, it wouldn’t be a crime for him to do it because of executive privilege. > > 3. “Treason against the United States shall consist only of levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, providing them aid and comfort.” Do you consider the US Constitution to be a strawman? > > 4. Prove that Bush ever fixed an election. > > 5. Prove that Bush ever engaged in profiteering. > > 6. Vote-rigging and war profiteering aren’t treason anyway; see above. Nice try at an [ad hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack. Whether I can prove it or not, you will either say my proof is insufficient or my lack of proof is proof I am wrong. Conversely, I challenge you to prove _I_ am wrong. I’ve got a 4th degree black belt in rhetoric my friend, just move along. Write it off as a learning experience and call Rush to ask for advice about what to do next time. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/51 "2014-06-23T09:28:11Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Nice try at an [ad hominem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack. Whether I can prove it or not, you will either say my proof is insufficient or my lack of proof is proof I am wrong. Conversely, I challenge you to prove _I_ am wrong. [Asked and answered;](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3) [QUOTE=US Constitution, Article III, Section 3] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. [/QUOTE] None of the accusations you have made against Bush meet the definition of treason as defined in the supreme law of the land. Therefore, you are wrong, and I’m not sure you know what “ad hominem” means either. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/52 "2014-06-23T09:36:45Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > None of the accusations you have made against Bush meet the definition of treason as defined in the supreme law of the land. > > Therefore, you are wrong, and I’m not sure you know what “ad hominem” means either. See? Exactly as I predicted. Dude, you are so outmatched it’s not even close. Again, prove to me, in proof you yourself would accept, that I am wrong. I’ll throw you a softball: prove that Bush had no knowledge that Valarie Plame’s name would be revealed by his subordinates. In fact, prove to me that he didn’t order it revealed himself. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/53 "2014-06-23T09:41:15Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > See? Exactly as I predicted. Dude, you are so outmatched it’s not even close. Again, prove to me, in proof you yourself would accept, that I am wrong. You are wrong because the accusations you are levying do not meet the standard for treason established by the Constitution. > [@](#): > > I’ll throw you a softball: prove that Bush had no knowledge that Valarie Plame’s name would be revealed by his subordinates. Irrelevant, because even if he had, it does not meet the Constitutional standard of treason. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/54 "2014-06-23T09:44:47Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You are wrong because the accusations you are levying do not meet the standard for treason established by the Constitution. > > Irrelevant, because even if he had, it does not meet the Constitutional standard of treason. Sorry, the correct answer is “you can’t prove a negative.” It’s been fun, but seriously if you want to learn more, I want to get paid for it. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/55 "2014-06-23T09:47:42Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Sorry, the correct answer is “you can’t prove a negative.” I don’t have to prove a negative. All I have to do is reiterate that you have not accused Bush of levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/56 "2014-06-23T09:49:07Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I don’t have to prove a negative. All I have to do is reiterate that you have not accused Bush of levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, providing them aid and comfort. Sigh. Ok, here’s a freebie: when you say “you didn’t” it’s ad homenim by definition. Attack the argument, not the person. And yes (freebie 2) you don’t have to prove a negative. All you have to do is say “a negative can’t be proved.” I usually charge $60/hour for instruction, fyi. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/57 "2014-06-23T10:06:57Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Sigh. Ok, here’s a freebie: when you say “you didn’t” it’s ad homenim by definition. Attack the argument, not the person. Your argument is that Bush committed treason. You have not made any allegations of any offenses by Bush that rise to the standard of treason. It is not ad hominem to point out that you haven’t even _made_ a claim for me to refute. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/58 "2014-06-23T10:09:54Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Your argument is that Bush committed treason. > > You have not made any allegations of any offenses by Bush that rise to the standard of treason. > > It is not ad hominem to point out that you haven’t even _made_ a claim for me to refute. Wow, I needed a second to LOL at that. Yes, that’s exactly why I made that claim. I am still waiting for you to prove that it is not treason to reveal an active spy’s identity. It is a straw man to try and make me prove bush did what you claim is treason, and it is ad homenim to say i didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/59 "2014-06-23T10:14:25Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Wow, I needed a second to LOL at that. Yes, that’s exactly why I made that claim. I am still waiting for you to prove that it is not treason to reveal an active spy’s identity. Because revealing an active spy’s identity is neither levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. On which note, do you believe Edward Snowden should be charged with treason? > [@](#): > > It is a straw man to try and make me prove bush did what you claim is treason, and it is ad homenim to say i didn’t. So in other words; 1. The Constitutional definition of treason is a strawman 2. Disagreeing with you is ad hominem 3. It is impossible to falsify any of your claims Glad we’ve got that out of the way, then. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/60 "2014-06-23T10:20:22Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Because revealing an active spy’s identity is neither levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. > > On which note, do you believe Edward Snowden should be charged with treason? > > So in other words; > > 1. The Constitutional definition of treason is a strawman > 2. Disagreeing with you is ad hominem > 3. It is impossible to falsify any of your claims > > Glad we’ve got that out of the way, then. Again straw man. Snowden has nothing to do with Bush. Should one drug addict have a different sentence than a second? Saying everything I say is false is ad homenim. Again, you have not proved that I am wrong, only throwing in other examples and misleading accusations. Is that what Rush is teaching nowadays? The man should be ashamed. Back in the day, he used to keep us unbalanced by creating new fictional arguments on an hourly basis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224.md?page=4)