Nader calls for Bush Impeachment over "British Memo"

[SLCPUNK]

The 'I' word
By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese | May 31, 2005


THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.



Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.

Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any imminent threat to the United States:

The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material." A 2003 update by the IAEA reached the same conclusions.

The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.

Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven. Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical agent production facilities.

When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might" and ''could." The case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."

The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."

The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.

[GnRNightrain]

The 'I' word
By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese | May 31, 2005


THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.



Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.

Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any imminent threat to the United States:

The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material." A 2003 update by the IAEA reached the same conclusions.

The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.

Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven. Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical agent production facilities.

When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might" and ''could." The case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."

The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."

The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.

Do you actually read this stuff before you post it?  I would start to laugh, but it seems like you arent the only one that can be convinced by this stuff. 

Funny, that they fail to quote anything from the minutes that implicate the administration.  All that your article contains is the understanding of the minutes from some of the most extreme left-wing members of Congress that want Bush impeached.  Post the minutes and let us decide what they mean themselves, instead of the interpretation of the minutes by some extreme left-wingers.

[SLCPUNK]

I already did about a week or so back.

Guess you did not read it...as usual.



******



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html


"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."


This one is even better, and it has a nice picture of Blair to look at also!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html

"The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration...""

[GnRNightrain]

So they are trying to wage war legally?  Saying that they need more evidence doesnt mean that they made shit up.  In fact Ill bet that you disregard the part of the memo that clearly shows that they thought Suddam had WMDs and that they thought he would use them on the invasion.  So now will you admit that they didnt lie about WMDs and that they actually thought they existed?

[loretian]

This is ridiculous.  Aside from these "investigations" from people like Nader, all the investigations and questioning show Bush didn't lie, and the people who were wrong, primarily of the CIA, were put into power by Clinton, not Bush.

[Mattman]

You know what I would call Ralph Nader if I didn't like him or his policies?

Darth Nader.

Pretty clever, eh? 

[SLCPUNK]

This is ridiculous.? Aside from these "investigations" from people like Nader, all the investigations and questioning show Bush didn't lie, and the people who were wrong, primarily of the CIA, were put into power by Clinton, not Bush.

You did not read anything did you?

Ran right back to Clinton.

Suprised you didn't mention a bj while you were at it.

[SLCPUNK]

In fact Ill bet that you disregard the part of the memo that clearly shows that they thought Suddam had WMDs and that they thought he would use them on the invasion.

You either did not read the report, only skimmed it, or are nuts. Which one is it?


"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."[/i]

[GnRNightrain]

In fact Ill bet that you disregard the part of the memo that clearly shows that they thought Suddam had WMDs and that they thought he would use them on the invasion.

You either did not read the report, only skimmed it, or are nuts. Which one is it?

I read it, did you?? Just because John Conyers says it implicates the administration (for those outside the US, Conyers is the extreme of the liberal Congress from Michigan) doesnt mean that you shouldnt read it yourself.

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "

That is a very ambiguous statement.? I saw nothing in the article that are as damning as you allege.? Regadless, it is all Hearsay.? Not saying that nothing wrong was done, but your article doesnt prove much SLC.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."[/i]

Lets break down this statement:

It seemed clear that Bush made up his mind to take military action
First, this statement is ambiguous.? It doesnt say that he said we were going to enter militarily no matter what.? If that was the case I doubt he would have went to the UN in the first place.?
Second, so what?? Suddam had broken 17 UN resolutions.? It was about time someone showed him the door.

The case was thin
I assume that this statement doesnt stand on its own.? In other words, by saying "thin" it means the next two sentences, so lets address those:

Suddam was not threatening his neighbors
Ok, that was never any reason used to go to war.? He was, however, violating the UN resolutions that were the result of invading his neigbors.

his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran
Wow, this is quite a statement.? It was also less than China, Pakistan, and Israel.? It was never claimed that he had a bigger weapons program than these countries.? It was well known that all of these countries were developing nuclear weapons.? Having less than these countries would still mean he might have quite a bit.? Im not sure to make out of this statement then?? It is really deceiving and proves nothing other than the fact that you refuse to acknowledge: the administration really thought that Suddam had WMDs.

This is supposed to incriminating?? To me it is exonerating.? They saw what was, in their opinion, the two biggest problems about going into Iraq (which rather small to me) and they didnt use these as reasons to go to war.? In addition, this proves that they always thought that WMDs existed.? Tell me where this shows that they lied?

[sandman]

i read the minutes in detail.

gnrnightrain - you are exactly right. they actually are more exonerating. which explains why the US press hasn't been all over this.

[Markus Asraelius]

All a person has to do is look at the first word in the topic line: "Nader." I don't listen to anything Nader says and nobody else should either.