Both Bush and Cheney are war criminals. If invading a country based on lies and without justification thus causing the deaths and maimings of thousands, both American servicemen and Iraqis, isn't a "high crime", then what is? Come on, Seth, they jumped that bar years ago.

I'd have thought you of all people would be gung ho for impeachment. I suspect this was written with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

What's the deal with the email and turing test?

@David: The only part of that I intended to be facetious was the bit about Florida voting.

@Joe: I don't know about "without justification", there was justification. It was poor justification, and it wasn't accepted by the international community, but we did have a rationale for war: WMD. It's just that they didn't exist.

As for lies, that's a stickier wicket. A lie isn't just saying incorrect things, it requires either knowledge of the contrary, the conscious omission of relevant details, or an intent to mislead. There were people who had reason to believe the contrary, but they were clearly kept from briefing the president. There were people who omitted relevant information (possibly the VP, definately the SecDef) but the SecDef is gone, and there isn't evidence of a VP did anything but poorly manage information. And as for intent, where is the motive?

I've always admired your logic, but you escape me here. Are you saying that the justification (WMD) didn't exist but that's OK? Bush had a responsibility to ascertain the truth before invading a country and sending our soldiers to die. Are you excusing him because he was so isolated he could be lied to by his staff on an issue like this or was just plain lazy? I just reread Article 2 Sec 4 online and it says nothing about intent or motive. That would be part of the accusation and trial, unless lying about a blowjob is a worse offense. I think we've gone beyond "poorly managed information" here. Are you sure you are seious about this? Take care.

The only way to truly nail down the lack of WMDs as an impeachable offense is if they had hard evidence that the Bush administration knew there weren't WMDs in Iraq but invaded anyway. That's the tricky part. I can speculate that Cheney holds the keys to all the incriminating documents that would bring an abrupt end to the Bush administration. Why else would he continually refuse to cooperate with the senate judiciary committee, or claim he's not part of the executive branch? The point is, as long as we don't have something solid, we can't impeach him. I doubt we'll see anything until there's a new president. I don't see much help coming from any aides or officials from Washington. The White House staff is probably afraid they'll be shot in the face.

As for Article II, Section 4 it is vague. Intentionally so. It allows for impeachment for treason, which you could make a case for with regard to the Plame ordeal, but you'd need more evidence. Bribery, of which I don't think anyone has accused him. Or "other high crimes and misdemeanors", which is super vague. If I had to guess what the framers were talking about I'd guess it was some serious shit, not things like lying about whether the chubby intern smoked your pole or not.

But let's get at that for a moment. Clinton's crime was perjury and to a lesser degree obstruction of justice, essentially lying under oath. You can only prove that if you believe he, or at least a reasonable person, would conclude, knowing what he did, that what he was saying was untrue. Could a reasonable person conclude that oral sex was sexual relations? I'm inclined to say yes. Is that what the impeachment statute was for? I'm inclined to say no.

Next, to my knowledge it is not illegal for the president, or anyone else for that matter, to make misleading statements, or even baldfaced lies in public. It's not wise. It certainly damages one's credibility, but if I please I may publicly declare 2+2 to be 7 without violating a law. The absence of WMD was not "OK". But unless he was being deposed, or examined in a court of law he's in the clear.

But let's for a moment assume he's made a statement to that effect under oath. It's falsity is not prima facie evidence of a conspiracy as long as Bush really believed they existed. If that is the case, he was mistaken; however, fallibility--no matter how tragic--is not an impeachable offense. If it is not the case that he (or at least a reasonable person) believed the weapons existed, then it would be a lie. In short, ignorance no matter how pathetic, is a defense.

You'll get no argument from me that the war was--and is--a bad idea based on a series of premises, many of which were not true. It was poorly planned for, poorly administrated, and a reasonable person could have foreseen the result of disrupting a Middle Eastern country by deposing the strong-arm leader who has only kept warring factions of extremist religious philosophies from a civil war by uniting them in fear of him. But impeachment requires a crime, and a crime requires meeting a burden of proof.

We may feel that this war has been such a catastraphe that it's got to be a crime, but it isn't. Impeachment isn't a tool for exacting our retribution, it's a implement to be used only in the most extreme of circumstances to rid the halls of power of federal officials who have abused their office in order to break the law.

Interesting historical note: George Mason, of 2006 Final Four fame, argued that "maladministration," a.k.a. incompetance, be a grounds for impeachment, but Madison and other framers felt that the term was so vague it would effectively reduce federal officials to serving at the pleasure of the Congress. Had these grounds remained in the document I would wholeheartedly support the impeachment of George W. Bush.

Little did I know, Ben's nailed the point as well as I could, and much more succinctly might I add.

There are two means of ridding yourself of a President: Impeachment and revolution.

The latter is the more retarded option in our situation.

If you don't believe we were lied to, there is quite a substantial body of evidence that the Bush administration misled the world about the WMD evidence. There was a study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that examined all the intelligence reports as well as the administration statements (including the text of Powell’s UN address) and one of the conclusions is:
“4. Did administration officials misrepresent what was known and not known based on intelligence? If so, what were the sources and reasons for these misrepresentations? Are there precautions that could be taken against similar circumstances in the future?
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapon programs and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above. The most important distortions fall into four
categories…..”
While Hussein was a long-term threat, it was knowable at the time that he was not an immediate threat despite the doomsday misrepresentations by the administration. In the meantime the actual mastermind for 9/11 is still at large and al qaeda is stronger than ever. I think misrepresenting evidence in order to lead us to war meets your qualifications for a “lie” and is a high crime in my book.

Misrepresentation certainly could qualify as a lie. But let me concede the point for the time being. The fact remains that a lie is not a crime per se.

Meet the Press is not a deposition, affidavit, or any other sworn statement. Lying, misleading, or misrepresenting the facts to the press, even if it leads us into war, is a tragedy, but it's not a crime. Although you'd have thought we would have learned our lesson after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.