http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/08/spr...ort/index.html

 

Not like this really surprised anyone.

So here is a legitimate question about this whole subject.

Does this mean that Bush and his cabinet could be charged with a crime out of this leading to impeachment?

I am not trying to start a flame war here but this seems to be a prime case for it. I doubt treason would be a consideration but with the deaths it caused and the number of international laws broken and disregarded as well as putting his own nation in jeapordy it sure isn't far from it.

The fact that they came out like this and said it in a public statement is rather surprising though. I was honestly expecting not to hear anything more about it until 20 years down the road after things had been forgotten.

 

This is certainly going to be an interesting election year ...

Anyone but Bush in '04, baby.

 

I will wait till the "official" report on Iraq's WMD comse out...not an "un-official" report by a group openly opposed to the war in Iraq.

While the report goes to great lengths theorizing why intelligence reports said their was WMD in Iraq, and is quick to say that there was no WMD for years, it does not offer any insight as to what happened to the WMD that were known to be there went, or why Saddam Hussein kept up the impression that he still harbored such weapons.

Remember it was not just the Bush administration that was convinced that Iraq had WMD. The Clinton administration too agreed the weapons were there...even going so far as to bomb Iraq in 1998 when they were no complying once again with sanctions and multiple UN resolutions authorizing to do so.

As for impeachment procedings, it is going to be hard pressed to get Congress and the Senate to vote on this since both the House and Senate Intelligence committees agreed that Iraq had WMD and both voted to approve the use of force against Iraq. Too many Congressmen and Senators would have to answer for voting for impeachment when they also believed the same evidence the Bush administration had and voted to give him the use of force to invade Iraq.

 

I like your response :thumbup:

well thought out.

 

Thank you.

I am not saying for certain that Iraq had WMD...but to say that this was one giant lie by the Bush administration is perposterous. If infact there are no WMD destruction in Iraq and have not been for a long time (not talking about them moving them to Syria or another country) we really need to determine the lapses in our intelligence gathering. Maybe onething we should do is make the head of the CIA a career post and not a political appointment.

 

This made me think. I havent really thought of the changes that would prosess untill now, interesting idea....

 

Why is this such a sticking point with some people? Bush went by the intelligence brought to him, and this was processed over the last decade of Saddam's deceit of the UN. So mabe Bush should have presented his case to the public more on the side that we needed to remove Hussein of power because he was in fact an evil dicator rather than WMDs. Whether we find any now or not is pretty much a moot point. Hussein is finished, the regime is toast, and the speed at which we captured him and his goons surprised alot of people. The world is a safer place now...... we know he was actively looking for them and in the future would have used them. So even if none are found, I think the operation was a success if for anything it was preventive maintainace.

 

Because the intelligence received may have been biased by political pressure.

 

I can respect this argument but the intelligence changed little from Clinton to Bush and both believed the same, both acted on it albeit one more than the other.