Tuesday | June 10, 2003
Is lying about WMDs an impeachable offense?
The question is rhetorical, of course. No one suggests that President Bush will really be impeached.
But it is a legit question, and it's especially surprising who is asking it: John Dean, Nixon's White House Counsel:
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.This is explosive stuff. And considering that the war's number one cheerleader -- Bill Kristol -- is now admitting Bush made "misstatements", it looks as though the whole WMD issue could very well be an albatross hung around Bush's 2004 re-election effort.
And, while some administration officials continue to insist the hunt for WMDs goes on, the truth on the ground is far different:
U.S. military units assigned to track down Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have run out of places to look and are getting time off or being assigned to other duties, even as pressure mounts on President Bush to explain why no banned arms have been found.They've checked out every single suspected WMD site, and they were all empty.
Bush lied. People died.Posted June 10, 2003 10:48 AM | Comments (225)