# What if it can be shown that Bush knowingly lied? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2003, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022 "2003-12-25T17:38:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/41 "2003-12-27T06:42:48Z")
The quotation you supplied supports my point, not contradicts it. Bush was underlining the distinction between Iraq’s _words_ and Iraq’s _actions_. “Saddam’s **actions** have put us on notice. . .” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/42 "2003-12-27T07:55:41Z")
I take any perjury seriously. But a President’s lying under oath about his personal sex life can in no measure compare with a President’s lying to Congress for the purpose of causing a pre-emptive strike and an ensuing war _under any circumstances_. It is Congress that is given the power to declare war and any President who _knowingly_ misleads Congress for that purpose is in breach of his Oath of Office. Is there truly anyone here who thinks that the first is as serious as the last? If the President did not _knowingly_ lie, then he should be making every effort to find out who mislead him and used him and for what purpose. And he must make that information available to Congress for appropriate action or face impeachment himself. Just as a reminder of the _certainty_ with which he lay our case before the United Nations, consider reading this press release from the Security Council of the United Nations. [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7658.doc.htm](http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7658.doc.htm) It is a detailed summary of Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations General Assembly and contains the following: > [@](#): > > In conclusion, Mr. Powell said that, for more than 20 years, Saddam Hussein had pursued his ambition to dominate Iraq and the broader Middle East, using intimidation, coercion and annihilation of all those who might stand in his way. Saddam Hussein was determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction and make more. “Should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing -– at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?” he asked, and continued, “The United States will not –- and cannot -– run that risk to the American people. **Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option. Not in a post-September 11 world.”** > He said over three months ago, the Council had recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security and that]Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today, Iraq still posed a threat and still remained in material breach.\*\* “Indeed, by its failure to seize its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continued defiance of this Council.”\*\* Resolution 1441 was not written to go to war, but to preserve the peace. Iraq was not taking the last chance it had been offered. “We must not shrink from whatever lies ahead of us. We must not shrink from our duty to the citizens of our countries”, he concluded. There is absolutely no doubt that the Bush Administration at least wanted the United Nations to _believe_ that the threat was imminent. Paraphrasing an oft-quoted Senator during the Watergate hearings: _I have no problem understanding the English language. It is my native tongue._ **lucwarm** , how do you reconcile these three statements? > [@](#): > > 1. I would not be outraged – I would just roll my eyes and shrug my shoulders. > [@](#): > > 1. …those sorts of lies are an accepted part of the political process. > [@](#): > > 1. What’s outrageous is that the American people accept and embrace these sorts of lies. Also, **lucwarm** , I am beginning to wonder if I am being whooshed by you name and your posting style: > [@](#): > > lucwarm: If it could be shown that JFK lied about Vietnam, or Cuba, or some other matter of public policy, would you agree that he should have been impeached? Oh, please. Not another Zinn cite… You are supposed to provide links to information that you refer to, _especially_ if it is quoted more than once. In this case, I find it a little obvious that you left out the lies of Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush the Elder quoted on the same page. (It is pre-Bush the Younger information and the info is apparently limited to one page…) You’re not partisan, are you? ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/43 "2003-12-27T08:08:56Z")
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, November 8, 2002: > [@](#): > > Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security. . . Impeach the United Nations Security Council! ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/44 "2003-12-27T08:30:47Z")
Approved unanimously by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: China, France, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom, United States. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/45 "2003-12-27T08:32:23Z")
Oops. Germany is not a permanent member. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/46 "2003-12-27T08:51:08Z")
**Walloon** : I see that you’ve now dragged the stuff you’ve been posting in this thread: [Was the Iraq War moral?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=230372&pagenumber=3) into this one. I’m still waiting for some kind of coherent explanation of the point you’re trying to make, if there is one. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/47 "2003-12-27T09:02:58Z")
\*\*adaher, are you stating that ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was not, in fact, occurring? Or that the UN sanctions were Clinton’s responsibility, not the UN’s? \*\* Ethnic cleansing as in booting people out of their homes, yes. Ethnic cleansing as in genocide, apparently not. [http://www.findarticles.com/cf\_dls/m1571/45\_15/58050616/p1/article.jhtml](http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/45_15/58050616/p1/article.jhtml) There may be more reason for their resentment. Clinton had claimed on March 23 that “what we are trying to do is to limit [Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic’s] ability to … engage in ethnic cleansing and slaughter innocent people.” Secretary of Defense William Cohen told viewers of CBS News that “100,000 military-age Albanian men are missing … and may have been murdered.” Clinton ally Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: “By the time the snows fall next winter, there will be genocide documented on a large scale in Kosovo.” Gee, sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? We are confident the WMD will be found? But the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, or ICTY, quietly has been backing off even the more modest recent claims that more than 10,000 persons were slaughtered by Yugoslav forces. The problem is that when international forensic teams went into Kosovo to examine alleged “mass-burial” sites, they found far fewer bodies than anticipated and declined to provide any analysis of the relative proportion of Albanians killed by Serbs, Serbs killed by Albanians, civilians vs. military or Kosovo Liberation Army irregulars. The charge of genocide has been difficult to sustain. When the Allies entered Nazi concentration camps, the evidence of mass killings was so massive that no search was necessary. In Cambodia and Rwanda, the piles of skulls were everywhere, often not even in mass graves. In East Timor, the bodies had not yet completely decayed. But in Kosovo the evidence of genocide was elusive. The ICTY had received reports of a possible 11,334 bodies in 529 gravesites. Although only about one-third of the sites have been examined, most of the reports have proved unsubstantiated. According to figures presented by the tribunal’s chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, only 2,108 bodies have been exhumed. When the teams arrived and were directed to what presumably would be the most notorious sites, they were relieved to find little to do. The Spanish team had been told to be prepared to exhume and autopsy 2,000 victims. They could find only 187 bodies, each buried in single graves. Similarly, a crack FBI team made two trips and could find only 200 bodies buried in 30 sites. “In the former Yugoslavia crimes were committed, some no doubt horrible, but they derived from the war,” said the Spanish team’s chief inspector, Juan Lopez Palafox. U.S. and NATO officials had reported that more than 1,000 bodies had been trucked to the Trepca mine under the cover of darkness and thrown down the shafts or dumped in vats of hydrochloric acid. But the ICTY’s report says that no bodies were found in the mine. Another NATO report claimed that 350 Albanians had been killed by retreating Serbs at Ljubenic near the town of Pec. The ICTY’s report says that authorities found only five victims. COPYRIGHT 1999 News World Communications, Inc. COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not condemning Clinton here. In fact, Clinton has been a credit to himself by refraining from taking cheap shots at Bush the way many people here and in Congress are. Clinton knows well that intelligence is not a sure thing and that judgement calls have to be made. As for the sanctions, I don’t blame Clinton for them, only pointing out that he supported the policy on the basis of Saddam being a threat and having WMDs. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/48 "2003-12-27T12:51:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\* > > **lucwarm** , how do you reconcile these three statements?\*\* Errr, my point is that predidential lying (as well as congressional lying) is commonplace. Most or all presidents, as well as many congressmen and senators, have told lies about issues of public policy. I find the practice annoying and lame, but I don’t believe it should result in impeachment. For one thing, we wouldn’t have any presidents left. What annoys me the most is that the American people accept these sorts of lies. It would be nice if the American people didn’t elect lying sacks of sh\*t into office. Clear enough? \*\* > [@](#): > > You are supposed to provide links to information that you refer to, _especially_ if it is quoted more than once.\*\* No need to start acting like a Junior Mod. Just ask me nicely and I’m happy to endeavor to provide a link. \*\* > [@](#): > > In this case, I find it a little obvious that you left out the lies of Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush the Elder quoted on the same page. (It is pre-Bush the Younger information and the info is apparently limited to one page…) You’re not partisan, are you? \*\* Actually I’m not partisan. I focused on Kennedy (and later Clinton) because I was responding to folks who were focusing on Bush and I wanted to test their positions. For the record, I believe that lying is a widespread practice among all politicians, both Democrat and Republican. Let me try to focus the discussion a little though: Do you believe that an elected official who lies about issues of public policy (as opposed to his or her own personal life) should be removed from office? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/49 "2003-12-27T13:29:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \* > \*\*No need to start acting like a Junior Mod. Just ask me nicely and I’m happy to endeavor to provide a link. > \*\* Feeling persecuted are we? Just provide the link. Assuming that there is one. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/50 "2003-12-27T13:38:02Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by lucwarm \* > Errr, my point is that predidential lying (as well as congressional lying) is commonplace. Most or all presidents, as well as many congressmen and senators, have told lies about issues of public policy. I find the practice annoying and lame, but I don’t believe it should result in impeachment. For one thing, we wouldn’t have any presidents left. What annoys me the most is that the American people accept these sorts of lies. It would be nice if the American people didn’t elect lying sacks of sh_t into office. Clear enough? This would be nice. However, we live in a world where fallible human beings with their own agendas tend to run for office. Saints are in the business of tending the suffering, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc., not running for public office as a general rule. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that an elected official who lies about issues of public policy (as opposed to his or her own personal life) should be removed from office? I’m going to have to give you an “It depends” on this. There are many issues on which the public is just plain not interested. If, for example, it should turn out that an Undersecretary of State blocked the importation of _kumiss_ from Kyrgyzstan not because of reasons of public health and safety but rather becuase he’d taken a payoff from Borden or Kraft or one of the big dairy cooperatives, it would take a major campaign aimed at stirring public outrage to get to the point where insistence on his resignation or firing would be required. And it’s possible that despite this particular lapse, the man may have been doing a good job by any reasonable objective standard. Part of the standard set forth in _Nixon v. U.S._ is that the President needs to be able to keep some material confidential, in order to do his job properly. For example, we no doubt have contingency plans in the works for the full-scale invasion of any country you care to name, not because we’re imperialist aggressors, but because there is an outside chance that any given country can be taken over by persons who hate the U.S. and are prepared to use it as a threat to our own national security. Contemplate, for example, the Bahamas run by Al-Qaeda after infiltration and a coup. Such plans should not be public knowledge, for reasons I think are obvious. Naturally there need to be limits on this, as Burger outlined – but the fact of the need is I think indisputable. There is also the partisan misconstruing of public remarks. An example from 63 years ago will prove instructive without hijacking the thread. During the 1940 campaign, FDR pledged numerous times that “your sons will not be sent to fight in overseas wars unless we are attacked.” In one speech in Boston, he referenced that pledge: “I’ve said it before, and I’ll repeat it here: your sons will not be sent to fight in foreign wars.” On this one occasion, he neglected to tack on the “attack” clause. Questioned by his aides afterwards, he said he thought it clear from the context that he meant to repeat what he had said already. But of course his political opponents made hay out of his having “broken that pledge” in the 1942 elections. I think it’s incumbent on Mr. Bush to make clear why he and his senior policy-making associates spoke untruths – but he needs to be allowed a little wiggle room. If clear intelligence, for example, produced results that would force a reaonsable man to the conclusion that Iraq had WMDs, and this turned out to be in error after the war, he was not in fact wilfully lying. But he needs to be upfront with the American people about this, to the extent he can do so without compromising our intelligemnce apparatus. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/51 "2003-12-27T14:10:53Z")
Suppose _all_ his intentions are good? Suppose he thinks really _really_ hard and decides that its a national security issue that the people not lose faith in the Administration. In time of peril and so on. And that it would be even worse if the American people should vote into office a bunch of wussy Dem appeasers. How hard do you think it would be for the Bushiviks to convince themselves of this? Any harder than convincing themselves that Saddam was a desperate threat to the US? ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/52 "2003-12-27T14:18:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > **Feeling persecuted are we?** Not at all. But I expect folks to be polite. “Link, please” works just fine. \*\* > [@](#): > > Just provide the link. Assuming that there is one. \*\* Say “please.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/53 "2003-12-27T14:23:10Z")
oh, _puh-leeeeeze_ ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/54 "2003-12-27T15:24:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > **we live in a world where fallible human beings with their own agendas tend to run for office.** I would go a little further than that and say that folks who run for office (and win) tend to be Machiavellian. \*\* > [@](#): > > Saints are in the business of tending the suffering, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc., not running for public office as a general rule.\*\* I would settle for folks who are decent (and honest, self-honest, smart, compassionate, and wise). Unfortunately, politics is a game where decency takes a back seat to opportunism. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/55 "2003-12-27T15:35:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*Your premise is fundamentally flawed, because President Bush did _not_ say that they were an imminent threat to the United States. To the contrary, he said in his State of the Union address in January 2003: \*\* FYI, FWIW, Here’s the thread on this debate: [Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=219080&highlight=imminent) And here’s the answer to GWB’s question, "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? " October 7, 2002 when, in the words of GWB, [Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html). > [@](#): > > **President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat** > “The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.” Granted, Hussien’s actions didn’t _politely_ put us on notice, but it’s the thought that counts. There’s a plenty in that thread showing how the “concept of imminent threat” _must_ be adapted to “the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.” To pretend that the admin didn’t sell the threat to the US from Iraq as imminent is to engage in basest of sophistry. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/56 "2003-12-27T15:40:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\* > The quotation you supplied supports my point, not contradicts it. Bush was underlining the distinction between Iraq’s _words_ and Iraq’s _actions_. “Saddam’s **actions** have put us on notice. . .” > \*\* So you’re saying that since it was Hussein’s action’s that are said to have demonstrated the imminent threat rather than Husein’s words, “The Bush admin never said that Hussein’s _words_ demonstrrated an imminent threat?” Is that the new bar you’ve established? that trhe Admin never said that Hussein’s words were demonstarble of an imminent threat? I hope that this is not the case. I hope that I merely have misunderestimated your imprecision. Sorry for the double posts. Got cut off last night. I just logged in and hit submit. OOPS ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/57 "2003-12-27T20:01:16Z")
In the interest of getting my intended question answered I’ll rephrase: Bush’s administration presented as fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that presented enough of a clear and present danger to the United States that immediate military action was needed. This fact was, in fact, no fact; it was an untruth. So far we all agree? Of the big players only the US and Britian were so sure of this fact that they felt immediate action was justified on its basis. Other nations (eg France, Germany, Russia) are on record as having wanted more proof of the statement before acting on the belief. (Cite already provided) Such was competent skepticism. But the US and Britian both presented the case as ironclad and both included evidence to bolster the case that later turned out to be false. Do we still all accept these as the facts as they stand? So if it was a knowing lie then would it be a big deal to have lied to Congress about why it was necessary for us to go to war alone if need be? If not a lie, then what kind of repercussions should there be for getting us into war on the basis of information that was verifiably false? Isn’t something like having presented false information to Congress and having us gone to war on the basis of false information a big enough deal that an _independent_ inquiry is justified? ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/58 "2003-12-27T21:21:03Z")
Since it is obvious that the information was false, why would an independent inquiry be necessary? The Administration should be called before Congress to explain who is responsible for _all_ of the mistakes in intelligence. Who mislead the President and why? If he cannot provide answers, _then_ an independent inquiry to determine the source of intelligence corruption is justified _and_ the President should resign for his incompetency. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that an elected official who lies about issues of public policy (as opposed to his or her own personal life) should be removed from office? It depends on the circumstances. However, an elected official who lies to Congress on issues of government should be immediately asked to resign. If she or he does not comply, then impeachment proceedings should follow. That includes Presidents who hide behind the shield of “National Security” when the nation’s security is not at stake. > [@](#): > > **lucwarm** : I expect folks to be polite. “Link, please” works just fine. > [@](#): > > **Desmostylus** : Just provide the link. Assuming that there is one. > [@](#): > > **lucwarm** : Say “please.” > > I expect folks to be polite. “Link, please” works just fine. But **lucwarm** , I was polite! I did say _please_! It was almost the first word out of my mouth: > [@](#): > > **Oh please. Not another Zinn site.** How quickly they forget… ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/59 "2003-12-27T22:43:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zoe \* > \*\* > However, an elected official who lies to Congress on issues of government should be immediately asked to resign. If she or he does not comply, then impeachment proceedings should follow. \*\* Just so I’m clear, when you say “lies to Congress,” are you exclusing statements made to the press and/or public? If so, what is the basis for your distinction? \*\* > [@](#): > > But **lucwarm** , I was polite! I did say _please_! It was almost the first word out of my mouth:\*\* Err, apology accepted. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022/60 "2003-12-28T06:18:00Z")
DSeid: Of course I remember that other countries, France high on the list, didn’t feel that questionable intelligence warranted immediate action. What does that have to do with my point, which is that the Bush admin is no less competent at _getting_ said intelligence? > [@](#): > > Bush and Blair claimed to know, on the basis of evidence that was too sensitive to share, of course, (“trust me”) and on the basis of evidence that was false. > > No Chiam, this was either a lie or incompentance of the administration. Bush’s own Foreign advisory board leans torwards the incompetance spin, no surprise given the only other choice: > > Fact-checkers blamed for Bush’s uranium ‘goof’ Oh, good grief. First of all: there was plenty of WMD intel aside from that “uranium goof.” The supposed uranium was hardly the only thing holding the causus belli together. Second of all: the “goof” is referring to the inclusion of that particular tidbit in a very public speech due to the fact that it was questionable, not to the intelligence behind it in the first place (read your own freaking cites!). Third of all: Bush and Blair never claimed certainty. They may have claimed they had additional, sensitive intelligence, but in the end it was still uncertain. The only difference is, as **SimonX** so succinctly put it: > [@](#): > > While the judgements of the likelihood of Iraq’s posession of banned weapons are’nt unique to this admin, the decisions and actions taken, (ostensibly on the basis of these judgements), are, in fact, unique to GWB’s current admin. Not lesser competence in intelligence-gathering. Just a lower threshhold for action. (This is notwithstanding the possibility that he may have been dishonest. My point is that if he was not being dishonest, it does not follow that he was incompetent.) Chaim Mattis Keller [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-it-can-be-shown-that-bush-knowingly-lied/221022.md?page=4)