Should Bush Be Impeached And Convicted?

[adios]

The investigation for WMD's in Iraq has not turned up a "smoking gun." Several are claiming on this forum that it was a facade i.e. the justification by the administration for invading Iraq was bogus from the git go. Those who are making these claims on the forum are not alone. Apparently this signals a dangerous abuse of political power to many. Is this action(s) by Bush an impeachable offense? If so should he be removed from office? I know the investigation is ongoing but say that a "smoking gun" is never found. Personally I don't think so if for no other reason that he broke no laws that I know of. At least not US laws. I suppose one could argue that he broke international law but if he did I don't think that that's an impeachable offense. Could be wrong though. I believe the wording in the Constitution is High Crimes and Misdemeanors so perhaps but it doesn't look like it to me. If Bush acted in a way that is dangerous and abusive of his political power it seems to me that there ought to be more than outrage directed towards Bush. There ought to be at least some sort of criticism and outrage over the process that led to this course of events if citizens believe that the administration's actions were a travesty. Personal attacks on Bush will fall on many deaf ears and I daresay won't accomplish very much if those that criticize see a need for change.

[Bob T.]

I'm not sure that the absence of a smoking gun, would be a useable justification for impeachment. The administration could claim that their intelligence indicated that the WMD existed, and they acted in good faith based on that information. I think that if it could be proved, that they knew that the information was false, and used the incorrect information to justify the war, then there might be some chance that the threshhold of High Crimes and Misdeameanors might be justified.

[adios]

I agree that it doesn't pass the threshold either.

[andyfox]

Apparently, thus far 90 suspected locations have been inspected without any evidence of WMDs. But the search has apparently been stymied by disorganization and bad intelligence.

Surely they'll find something to hang their hat on. And if they don't, they'll make it up, or take very thin evidence and fatten it up. All governments do this.

The congress voted thumbs up for the war. No impeachment.

[MMMMMM]

90/1,000+. And that's just locations already designated for search.

[adios]

"Surely they'll find something to hang their hat on. And if they don't, they'll make it up, or take very thin evidence and fatten it up. All governments do this."

I don't think so, especially after this much time has elapsed. As I posted to Chris I think the downside is too much. Definitely could be wrong though.

"The congress voted thumbs up for the war. No impeachment."

Although congress could say they were deliberately lied too and misled. I agree with scalf though that an impeachment would be politically motivated and the votes aren't there.

[Chris Alger]

No statute or treaty makes it a crime for a US politican to simply lie. I can't imagine that one would ever exist. If Bush is guilty of crimes, they would concern the war's violations of the UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention and other treaties. While it isn't any defense to point out violations by others, it seems to me that every President since these treaties came into being, including Clinton, is guilty of something similar, sometimes much worse.

So while people should be properly terrified of Bush's "preventative war" doctrine, the basic problem isn't Bush or one that can be solved by getting rid of him. A reasoned debate about his culpability, however, might liberate some of the public from a tendency, whether based on fear, ignorance or misguided "patriotism," to constantly defer to officials and their unofficial spokespeople in the media in matters of foreign and military policy.

[adios]

This does provide an opening for the Democrats in 2004 it seems to me as much as I hate to admit it. As MMMMMMM states there is a long way to go in the investigation. Chris I don't think the Administration is going to plant a smoking gun. The downside is too much IMO.

[Chris Alger]

There won't be any real investigation and they don't have to plant a smoking gun. There might be hearings, but every administration has an airtight alib for these occasions: "we relied on the best intelligence we had, and acted accordingly; any mistakes were made in good faith." And just as in Iran-contra, the "intelligence" will never see the light of day. In the meantime, the Democrats will be pilloried by right-wing pundits for partisan harping about the integrity of public officials regarding wartime judgments (something that's flatly unassaiable), hypocrisy after most voted to authorize war, interference with a core executive function, etc.

The worst case scenario for Bush will some congressional criticism about morally netural errors of judgment which the media will explain as understandable overeaction given the nature of the enemy we faced, public outcry over 9/11, the Islamicist threat, and rhetoric similar to that used to justify all the other foreign interventions we've launched since WWII. Any investigation will therefore shore up the perception that the Democrats are relatively soft on defense and will cost them more than they'll gain. Some Democratic "centrists" like Lieberman will side with the GOP.

Here's the crux of the problem: the average American that reads the news (and is not among the large group who are psychologically incapable of questioning any American use of military force) finds it difficult to imagine, much less articulate, a logical non-defensive reason why the war was fought without falling into the discredited conspiracy theorist or Quaker paradigms. The notion that the US acts like other powerful countries throughout the world and throughout history, that it has elite foreign interests unrelated to most citizens, and even less related to its domestic political norms and ideals, and that it will use mass violence to protect them, simply is not a position that can resonate in the popular press. It can barely be mentioned except by sources that are discredited as falling outside the spectrum of responsible debate (Robert Scheer, for example, presently the target subject of a right-wing campaign to get newspapers to drop his column). There are too many pressures to flavor any discussion of foreign policy with what Aurthur Schlesinger once called "high-falutin corn" (in advice to JFK about how to explain our Cuba policy) and even worse rhetoric pandering to the racists and fascists among us. In fact I suspect I'm understating it.

As for "finding" WMD, there are lots of scenarios short of a planted "smoking gun" this that will give Bush the minimal level of vindication he needs to at least retain his popularity. (BTW, I read that polls show that Americans don't much care whether WMD are found in Iraq). They can find "trace amounts" of agents and their precursors in "suspect locations." There are dual use chemicals like "gorwth media" that Iraq certainly has. If Iraq destroyed agents by burying them, they can be dug up with the claim that we can't prove "when" they were buried (perhaps on the "eve of war!"), and that they probably haven't been usable for years will be buried down in paragraph 20. These discoveries will be hailed by the propaganda machine as "likely" or "potential" WMD.

And it is entirely possible that Iraq retained some modest stockpiles of somewhere. Although this won't refute the anitwar argument that they never posed a serious threat to anyone, given that Saddam never used them without at least an amber light from the US, and would have sealed his fate if he did, the media will treat it as proof positive that the antiwar crowd had it wrong on the basic facts.

If little is found, I can outline the apologist defense right now: liberal appeasers and Saddam defenders, always squeamish about using the military for its intended purpose, demand absolute proof that Iraq was about the launch WMD against the US. Thank God that Bush & co. have the moral fortitude to act before it was too late. And in any event we liberated Iraq from the Great Satan, restored our credibility abroad, etc. etc.

[BruceZ]

Even if no WMDs are ever found, the inspector's failed to verify that Saddam destroyed the WMDs that it had. It was stated several times that this verification by the inspectors was a requirement for Iraq to be in compliance with the UN resolutions banning WMDs. If compliance could not be verified, that is the same as not being in compliance.

Further, it was all too easy for Iraq to have moved these weapons into Syria or elsewhere, and they had ample time to do this. Weapons or no weapons, there is ample evidence from interviewing scientists that they were working on these weapons, and that they were purchasing precursors to make these weapons.

The US acted on the evidence it had. If you think there is a 90% chance your opponent has a hand, and you act in accordance with that percentage, your actions were not wrong when it turns out in fact he did not have a hand.

We DID find a smoking gun linking Iraq to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.