This was a lie, but is it a crime?

"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

Bush said this in the fall of 2002, in the run up the getting Congressional approval for the use of force in Iraq. Bush professed that he had no desire to go to war. He claimed he needed this approval for action as a tool to find a peaceful path in Iraq. Bush promised that war was the last option.

The trouble is, it was all a lie.

We know from a collection of UK memos, that in the spring of 2002 the US was already committed to war. Scott Ritter claims that in the late spring of 2002 (a year prior to the start of the war) Bush ordered Special Forces into Iraq. We know that the US and British air forces started bombing Iraqi targets in the summer of 2002, and that the UK judged that these bombings were Illegal under international law.

The Downing Street Memo, and those that have followed, make clear the lie. They also make a strong case that many in the British Government consider this war illegal.

The question that the US will have to face is; Are Bush's actions and statements criminal. As early as June 2003 there was talk of finding grounds for impeachment simply in the lies that led to war. Now we have evidence of direct and covert acts that Bush ordered, while continuing to lie about his plan for peace. John Bonifaz and Dave Zweifel now strongly argue that there is a clear case for impeachment.