Is invading a country under faulty intelligence a crime? If it is, then why not impeach? Don't tell me it's not a crime because a high ranking military official told me it was.
They're so guilty.
2007-04-23 08:32:12 · 30 answers · asked by Diggy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I can't disclose my military official source, but he isn't disgruntled nor is he from Saddam's military. He is actually a very high ranking member in the United States military. He does an excellent job, still supports the President as he should, he is his boss.
2007-04-23 08:48:38 · update #1
Impeachment is ultimately a political process. If you want him impeached, implore your representatives/senators.
That said, preemptive war unless to prevent an imminent attack is considered under UN charter to be extra-legal. And here in the US, due to US law, signed treaties are considered to be sovereign law.
So there is some argument that this is reasonable line. However, it will be extremely difficult to convince those that are not pre-convinced. And you may not be able to get the result, and only get all the international damage of having the case.
There may be a more politically feasible course by going after the AG, if a case can be developed. Or more likely, just an ever continuing unearthing of facts that ultimately prevent the republicans from being in power.
Vote well, we have the ability to stop this. Don't vote for those that do stuff like this.
2007-04-23 08:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by basicporkandbeans 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In this case, it was the same faulty intel that the Clinton administration used for its airstrikes,
the same faulty intel that Hillary cited as having been well-known to the Clinton presidency when she made public speeches to support the invasion,
the same faulty intel that our European allies also gahtered their own versions of,
and the same faulty intel that every member of Congress subjected to review and debate prior to authorizing, voting in favor of, and funding the war.
That's a lot of "guilty" people to impeach! And no- no matter what your "high ranking military official" says, the president is granted powers as commander-in-chief under the US Constitution. .
2007-04-23 08:50:46 · answer #2 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You obviously are talking to a high ranking military official from Saddam's military. Get over it and move on, nobody is going to impeach "W" when they're trying to rev up for the 2008 elections. The Democrats know that type of action could blow up in their face and cause them to loose support instead of gain support. Because Clinton was impeached, every democrat on here wants Bush impeached, move on!
2007-04-23 08:39:43 · answer #3 · answered by Jim 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
A high ranking military official told you it was huh... so what was their name?
And if it was, who would be the guilty party?
Seems the most guilty person is the one who was stating the faulty info... which I believe was british and italian intelligence.
who then passed it to the CIA, who then passed it to the DoD, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the President etc.
And are we to ignore other reasons for removing saddam or is it all about faulty info on WMDs.
You know UN resolutions 660 through 1441 gave UN authorization to member states to 'use any means nescessary' to uphold stability in the region in regard to saddam not complying with previous UN resolutions.
Does that mean nothing to you?
2007-04-23 08:48:25 · answer #4 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Remember that Congress authorized action. According to the US Constitution, that's all that's required to go to war. As far as faulty intelligence, every intelligence agency on earth (including the UN) said that Iraq had WMDs. Even Saddam bragged about it. Maybe Saddam was lying to appear tough to Iran.
2007-04-23 09:17:21 · answer #5 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Starting a war with faulty evidence is not a crime as long as he( Bush) didn't suspect or know that it was faulty. Same goes with deception of the American people. As long as the intent to decieve wasn't there , he didn't commit a crime.
It comes down to the intent to commit. That military official was giving you his opinion, not according to law.
2007-04-23 08:43:03 · answer #6 · answered by reinformer 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey, tell the Dems in Congress that they can start articles of impeachment anytime they are ready. In fact only the Dems are to blame if you do not get those articles started. So talk to them.
BTW, no it is not a "high crime or misdomeanor" for having 23 reasons to go to war and have the Congess pass it (Auth to Use Military Force 2002) against Iraq.
Remeber you have to "think" and "reason" not "feel" and "emote" when you are discussing LEGAL topics
2007-04-23 08:39:38 · answer #7 · answered by jonepemberton 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Invading a country under false pretenses is most certainly an impeachable offense, and it will be how both Cheney and bush are inevitably impeached.
They had already planned to invade Iraq LONG before 9/11.
2007-04-23 08:45:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Then also hold the Congresspeople who voted to authorize the action(majorities of both Republicans and DEMOCRATS) to the same standard. Yes, the Senate Intelligence Committee had access to all the same intelligence that the President used to make the decision(its called checks and balances people) and they voted to recommend the President's course of action.
If you truly believe this is the best course of action then hold your Democrat heroes to the same standard please, otherwise go home and leave this to the big boys.
2007-04-23 08:40:37 · answer #9 · answered by meathookcook 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Do some research at the link below...
Here is an except you might find interesting (or not, depending on whether you want to learn, or just want to incite an arguement):
"For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' may be impeached"
2007-04-23 08:36:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋