# 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:** 5
**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, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/81 "2014-06-23T11:41:43Z")
Saw your last post, no, I don’t have to prove I’m right, you have to prove I’m wrong. Oh, that’s another one, i forget the latin. Don’t try and pretend I said those things when I didn’t, doesn’t work. 😃 > [@Superhal](#): > > Softball hint: try to find documents related to the Libby case rather than accusing me of being wrong. I should also say that my easy answer to any evidence you find is that “of course GWB let libby take the fall. As long as he’s president, he can give a presidential pardon for any conviction. As history shows, Libby was in fact found guilty. Therefore, somebody committed treason, it’s just a question of who and how many.” You just have to show he didn’t have knowledge of it before the fact. ---
**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, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/82 "2014-06-23T11:43:40Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > Saw your last post, no, I don’t have to prove I’m right, you have to prove I’m wrong. Sorry, but you are _completely_ ass-backwards here. By your logic, I could declare that _you_ exposed Valerie Plame’s identity and demand that you be jailed unless you could prove you didn’t. The burden of proof rests with the positive claimant. Do the words “Innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/83 "2014-06-23T11:44:33Z")
Impeachment is not intended to be a weapon for political enemies. Impeachment is a last resort method of removing a highly corrupt or unstable person from office. Thankfully its never been successfully used. Congress came close to impeaching Andrew Johnson for trying to implement Lincoln’s plan to mercifully reintroduce the Southern states back into the Union. Powerful interests wanted to profit off the south and came within a few votes of removing Johnson from office. IMHO… Nixon was showing signs of instability and probably would have been impeached, He wisely resigned. Bush made mistakes but never came close to meeting the criteria for impeachment. Neither did Clinton. His enemies backed him into a corner over a Blow Job. He lied in a deposition and they tried to use that as an excuse for impeachment. Thankfully the votes weren’t there. Successfully using impeachment as a political weapon would set up a very dangerous precedent. imho ---
**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, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/84 "2014-06-23T11:48:57Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Sorry, but you are _completely_ ass-backwards here. By your logic, I could declare that _you_ exposed Valerie Plame’s identity and demand that you be jailed unless you could prove you didn’t. > > The burden of proof rests with the positive claimant. Do the words “Innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell? Wow, we might need new latin words for this one. So you’ve: a. Completely sidestepped my argument, b. Accused me of doing what I said GWB did, c. Stated it in a way inferring I am automatically wrong, and d. Brought in a new argument that is completely unrelated to what we were discussing before. I’m going for ad donalduckian? ---
**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, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/85 "2014-06-23T11:50:24Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > b. Accused me of doing what I said GWB did Can you prove you didn’t? After all, I don’t have to prove I’m right, you have to prove I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/86 "2014-06-23T12:20:36Z")
Getting back to the OP, one of the facts of American politics, back then and now, is that getting in to a war is very popular and that popularity is very easy to manipulate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/87 "2014-06-23T12:44:48Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Thankfully its never been successfully used. [It certainly has](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#History_of_federal_impeachment_proceedings_in_the_United_States), just not against a President. > [@](#): > > Congress came close to impeaching Andrew Johnson No, they did it. The Senate came close to “convicting” (removing) him, but he was indeed impeached by the House. > [@](#): > > Bush made mistakes but never came close to meeting the criteria for impeachment. What do you think those are? > [@](#): > > Successfully using impeachment as a political weapon would set up a very dangerous precedent. imho You speak of it in the hypothetical. The impeachment of Clinton was certainly a political weapon, and did set a dangerous precedent, one which played a role in Bush not getting impeached. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/88 "2014-06-23T12:58:17Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > No, this was reported in the press. It’s been cited more than once; another won’t do any good. Oh, go ahead. Amuse us. What exactly was found that vindicates your belief? > [@](#): > > The Rockefeller inquiry found that the notion that Saddam had a WMD program was “generally supported by the evidence”. Also cited more than once. [And here’s another](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq): > [@](#): > > Said the commission: > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > Subsequent conclusions fault the intelligence community for failing to adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties that underlay the NIE’s conclusions, and for succumbing to “group think,” in which the intelligence community adopted untested (and, in hindsight, unwarranted) assumptions about the extent of Iraq’s WMD stockpiles and programs. Under delivery systems: > [@](#): > > In the case of the NIE’s reporting on Iraq’s development of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), however, the Committee found that the reporting generally was \*\*not \*\*well-supported by the underlying intelligence, and overstated what was known concerning the likelihood that the Iraqi UAVs were intended for use as a delivery means for biological weapons. Rockefeller’s own individual opinion, which you falsely suggest was the full committee’s, and which you have pretty pathetically cherry-picked: [/quote] “It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses. While the report highlights many of the problems with the intelligence and criticizes the Bush Administration for its handling of the lead up to the war and its reasons for doing so, the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were “generally substantiated by the intelligence”. “There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate." [/quote] As in, you for some reason fail to note that the intelligence that “generally supported” the claim was bullshit, and widely known to be bullshit. You may recall some discussion of that point, hmmm? Perhaps about Cheney picking his own “Team B” that would tell him what he wanted to hear, not what the evidence said? Ring any bells? You \*could \*go find out more with a single click. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/89 "2014-06-23T13:21:08Z")
I got my words mixed up. I thought impeachment required successfully removing someone from office. Not just the attempt. My mistake. AFAIK Clinton was never impeached. They talked about it, but I’m pretty sure it never actually reached a vote. Didn’t they censure him or something? I can’t recall. I know his law license in Arkansas was suspended. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [It certainly has](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#History_of_federal_impeachment_proceedings_in_the_United_States), just not against a President. > > No, they did it. The Senate came close to “convicting” (removing) him, but he was indeed impeached by the House. > > What do you think those are? > > You speak of it in the hypothetical. The impeachment of Clinton was certainly a political weapon, and did set a dangerous precedent, one which played a role in Bush not getting impeached. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/90 "2014-06-23T13:29:39Z")
No, Clinton \*was \*impeached. None of the articles got even a majority vote against him in the Senate, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/91 "2014-06-23T14:33:11Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > I got my words mixed up. I thought impeachment required successfully removing someone from office. Not just the attempt. My mistake. > > AFAIK Clinton was never impeached. They talked about it, but I’m pretty sure it never actually reached a vote. Didn’t they censure him or something? I can’t recall. I know his law license in Arkansas was suspended. You don’t know very far at all. The Judiciary Committee passed four articles of impeachment. All four were then voted upon by the full House of Representatives. Two passed. [Cite.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm) > [@](#): > > 1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. > Approved by House 228-206 > > 2. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. > > Approved by House 221-212 President Clinton was then tried by the Senate, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. He was acquitted on February 12, 1999. [Cite.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm) > [@](#): > > The United States Senate acquitted William Jefferson Clinton yesterday on charges that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice to hide sexual indiscretions with a onetime White House intern, permitting the 42nd president to complete the remaining 708 days of his term. > > After a tumultuous year of scandal that tested the Constitution and tried the nation’s patience, neither of the two articles of impeachment brought by the House garnered a simple majority, much less the two-thirds necessary to convict Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors. Article I alleging perjury was defeated on a 45 to 55 vote at 12:21 p.m. Just 18 minutes later, Article II charging obstruction failed on a 50 to 50 tie. Five Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in supporting full acquittal. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/92 "2014-06-23T14:52:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As in, you for some reason fail to note that the intelligence that “generally supported” the claim was bullshit, and widely known to be bullshit. From your own badly coded cite - > [@](#): > > While the report highlights many of the problems with the intelligence and criticizes the Bush Administration for its handling of the lead up to the war and its reasons for doing so, the report also supports in many cases that claims made by the Bush Administration about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were “generally substantiated by the intelligence”. This is another reason I don’t need to cite - your own cites disprove what you say. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/93 "2014-06-23T14:59:47Z")
My call is that Presidential Candidate GW Bush followed the same GOP tradition for selecting a running mate that Eisenhower, Nixon, GHW Bush, and that later, John McCain followed. That tradition is, when choosing a running mate, chose what I call “Impeachment Insurance”. Would the Democrats ever pursue impeachment when the result could be a President Nixon, President Spiro Agnew, President Dan Quayle, President Dick Cheney, or President Sarah Palin? Nixon didn’t get impeached until AFTER Agnew was gone and Ford was his VP. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/94 "2014-06-23T15:02:39Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is another reason I don’t need to cite - your own cites disprove what you say. You’re still not getting the part about blaming the intelligence for being bullshit, or the part about why it was bullshit, are you? Now what was it exactly that was found that constitutes WMD’s, per your definition? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/95 "2014-06-23T15:28:38Z")
Your memory is a lot better than mine. I mostly recall the disgust I had for all the wasted investigations that tried to take Clinton down. Whitewater, then Vince Fosters suicide, they even investigated Hillary’s Futures trading from the mid 1970’s. The politically motivated attacks just never stopped. Then Bill gets a blow job and lies about it. Giving his enemies just what they so desperately wanted. > [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t know very far at all. > > The Judiciary Committee passed four articles of impeachment. All four were then voted upon by the full House of Representatives. Two passed. [Cite.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/articles122098.htm) > > President Clinton was then tried by the Senate, with Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist presiding. He was acquitted on February 12, 1999. [Cite.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/96 "2014-06-23T15:31:19Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > WMD’s was total, absolute BS. If this was even partially true, we would have invaded North Korea 10 years ago. Or Syria when they recently used weapons of mass destruction against their own people. It’s nice to know we believe so strongly in our principles. I never understood the argument in the first place—WE have weapons of mass destruction, in the sense of nuclear weapons or even the smallpox virus. Shouldn’t people be able to invade us on the same justification, or is it okay because we’re so open about it? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/97 "2014-06-23T16:24:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > At the time, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. > > Wrong, flatly wrong. The majority of us did _not_. I don’t think that’s true. I’ve been browsing old GD threads from the run-up to the Iraq War, and it’s actually quite rare to find a poster unequivocally state that they believe there to be no WMDs, let alone that they’re certain about it. For instance, [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2686828) specifically invites people to come out and make that claim. AFAICT, while several posters express varying degrees of skepticism about the administration’s claims, only two come right out and say it, and one of those ( **even sven** ) qualifies her statement by saying: “He certainly has some amount of chemical weapons…”. After looking at some of these threads, I’d say a majority of the board wanted inspections to continue, thought the administration was playing fast & loose with some of their evidence, thought that Iraq was not a serious threat to the U.S., but held that Saddam _probably_ or _quite possibly_ had a meaningful stockpile. Examples of “I don’t think there are any WMDs” are few and far between. So, I guess what I’m saying is: cite? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/98 "2014-06-23T16:30:46Z")
The statement was made that “everyone believed” it. Not believing something is not the same as believing the opposite to be true. Most of us did not believe flatly that it was not true, wanting to give the President the benefit of greater access to information, although there were certainly growing suspicions that were going to reach full maturity once the UN report came out. The fact that the invading forces then completely bypassed the locations the administration had claimed were WMD sites provided all the remaining evidence one should need that they were simply lying. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/99 "2014-06-23T20:48:10Z")
> [@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. . . . ??? If someone posts a claim, and someone else says, “You didn’t back that up with any cites,” is that really fallacious? Simply addressing the person isn’t “attacking” the person. The standard examples of ad hominem are abusive speech and guilt by association. “Yes, but you’re a member of the Labor Party, so I know you’re against freedom.” Saying, “You didn’t justify that point sufficiently” isn’t invalid. It’s often the most reasonable thing one can say. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224/100 "2014-06-23T21:16:43Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > — were that a maddened Mr. Bush would contrive to override the law and stay on as perpetual president, That has popped up ever since there was an internet. I remember people saying Clinton was going to declare martial law and stay on as president. Then I heard it about Bush. I’m sure I will start seeing it about Obama soon. People were probably saying it about Washington but didn’t have the internet to spread it. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’ve never been a big believer in the “Bush was just a puppet” idea. I believe Bush was in charge of what was going on in his administration. Very few of his political opponents feel that way either. I’ve seen quite a few who despise his policies but who had personal contact state how he was on top of everything and his attempt at homespun charm and lack of communication skills masked his intelligence and he was completely in charge. I know around here no matter what anyone says about him would not change the opinion that he is a dummy any more than I can convince certain acquaintances that Obama isn’t an evil dictator. > [@Trinopus](#): > > ??? If someone posts a claim, and someone else says, “You didn’t back that up with any cites,” is that really fallacious? Simply addressing the person isn’t “attacking” the person. > > The standard examples of ad hominem are abusive speech and guilt by association. “Yes, but you’re a member of the Labor Party, so I know you’re against freedom.” > > Saying, “You didn’t justify that point sufficiently” isn’t invalid. It’s often the most reasonable thing one can say. I don’t think its worth it getting in the middle of those two. They won’t listen to each other why would they listen to you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serious-question-why-didnt-bush-face-impeachment-over-iraq/691224.md?page=6)