When Presidents Lie
June 15th, 2003 | by Tony Steidler-Dennison |John Dean, of Watergate fame, makes several compelling points about the apparent absence of WMD in Iraq. Given his role in history, the arguments Dean makes are especially credible. He raises the obvious questions about the credibility of the President in his statements regarding WMD:
Perhaps most troubling, the President has failed to provide any explanation of how he could have made his very specific statements, yet now be unable to back them up with supporting evidence. Was there an Iraqi informant thought to be reliable, who turned out not to be? Were satellite photos innocently, if negligently misinterpreted? Or was his evidence not as solid as he led the world to believe?
The absence of any explanation for the gap between the statements and reality only increases the sense that the President’s misstatements may actually have been intentional lies.
And Dean comes to a conclusion both thoughtful and direct:
Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.
As I remarked in an earlier column, this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush’s doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be “a high crime” under the Constitution’s impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.”
Dean suggests a situation to which he’s been personally very close - impeachment. And, you can bet that if the current President’s name was Clinton rather than Bush, that’s the path down which we’d be headed.
3 Responses to “When Presidents Lie”
By joseph castleschouldt on Jun 15, 2003 | Reply
If Bush lied, we can no longer trust him, but what’s worse is the small nations of the world can no longer trust America.
If we are pursuing this as a new standard, may I suggest someone closer to home. I’m sure Castro has committed a human rights breach during his years in power. If not, we can make one up.
By Mary on Jun 16, 2003 | Reply
When Bush first strong-armed his way into the Oval Office, much of the nation and world at large suspected he may also strong-arm his way into Iraq for revenge…I think 9/11 diverted the vigilance of many…Strange convenience for him if I must say…as many thought he would invade for revenge, the obvious reasons are oil and war profiteering (check out who the CEOs are in the oil and defense industries)…all at ours and our future generation’s expense…Who are the real “Evildoers” here?…*sigh*
*-m-*
By Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. on Jun 17, 2003 | Reply
As a child, I was taught that America was the land of the free, and the home of the brave. When I said the Plege of Allegiance, I believed the part about “with liberty and justice for all”.
Then there was the Viet Nam war, and I grew up. Now all I want is to help my country live up to the high ideals it has always purported to stand for.
This will be no easy task. If all men [people] are created equal, and if all people are entitled to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, we can no longer single out any one person because of skin color, national origin, or religion.
If America is truely the home of the brave, we can no longer use 09/11 as an excuse to bully our way arround the world.
We can not live in fear. Those cretins who believed they were going to heaven when they crashed those planes into the WTC got a rude awakening when they found out where they will spend the rest of eternity!
Our current President was elected to office under questionable circumstances.
Then when one of our aircraft made an emergency landing in China, he “negotiated”.
But when the Taliban in Afganistan refused to turn over Bin Laden, we went to war.
And we went to war again with Sadam over WMD.
However when Korea openly resumed a Nuclear weapons program, our President “negotiated”.
Taken separately, negotiating our differences with nations such as China and Korea is an inteligent choice. And I can find no fault in our action in Afganistan. I also believe the world is better off with Sadam Housein out of power.
My problem with the war in Iraq is not with the objective of removing Sadam Housein from power, but with the falshood used to initiate this war.
As the most powerfull nation in the world, we have a responsibility to the rest of the world to use our power in a [well] responsible manner.
If we are to live up to our ideals as a nation, we must treat our fellow nations with respect, and dignity.
We can not reshape the world to fit the image we want it to fit. We can not expect other nations to always agree with us. And we can not bully other nations for any reason.
History teaches us we can not rule the world with force, nor can we lead with force. Any nation which has attempted this has fallen to defeat.
If our President has indeed falsified evidence or allowed evidence to be falsified to get Congress to support a war in Iraq, then he should be impeached.
Ernie