Impeach Bush
Thread Starter
Stuff and things.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
From: New York
Impeach Bush
Ordinarily I find Ralph Nader to be cranky and bizarre, but he and this guy Zeese have hit the nail on the head. -Ben
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Stuff and things.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
From: New York
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Gee I said the same thing a few years ago....but I was called unamerican for saying it
Additionally, have you heard about this Amnesty International report that compares Abu Ghraib to a Soviet Gulag? VP Cheney's response was misdirection on the scale of David Copperfield. He essentially said that America has done a great deal for the world. A complete non-answer. What a dick!
un-Touch'd krew
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 51,774
Likes: 1
From: My own level of hell
Originally Posted by benjamin
Not by me you weren't.
Additionally, have you heard about this Amnesty International report that compares Abu Ghraib to a Soviet Gulag? VP Cheney's response was misdirection on the scale of David Copperfield. He essentially said that America has done a great deal for the world. A complete non-answer. What a dick!
Additionally, have you heard about this Amnesty International report that compares Abu Ghraib to a Soviet Gulag? VP Cheney's response was misdirection on the scale of David Copperfield. He essentially said that America has done a great deal for the world. A complete non-answer. What a dick!
The Pres and VP are supposed to make their country look as though it is in the right no matter what because admitting what happened in that prison was known would start a whole shitstorm of hearings and red tape. It would be very similiar to the Ollie North scandal in the late 80s.
I am not in agreement that what happened in Abu Gharib was as bad as the Soviet Gulag though. Yes there was abuse of prisoners which cannot be denied. They also had their religious beliefs used against them in this abuse which is in direct contrast to Geneva convention. But whether it was as extensive as the Gulag I have my doubts.
__________________
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
"I'll keep my money, guns and freedom. You can keep the "Change."
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,181
Likes: 0
From: CA
Originally Posted by benjamin
Not by me you weren't.
Additionally, have you heard about this Amnesty International report that compares Abu Ghraib to a Soviet Gulag? VP Cheney's response was misdirection on the scale of David Copperfield. He essentially said that America has done a great deal for the world. A complete non-answer. What a dick!
Additionally, have you heard about this Amnesty International report that compares Abu Ghraib to a Soviet Gulag? VP Cheney's response was misdirection on the scale of David Copperfield. He essentially said that America has done a great deal for the world. A complete non-answer. What a dick!
and for the record, while cheney did BS about the good america has done in the last century, yadda yadda yadda, he did specifically deny amnesty international's claims in a larry king interviewhttp://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/che...ntl/index.html
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,925
Likes: 0
From: Sacramelto, home after 10 years in Texas
Nuclear weapons are very difficult and expensive to manufacture and deliver. Biologicals, on the other hand, are relatively simple and inexpensive to manufacture and deliver. Imagine a cropduster doing a flyover at a Jets game. Instead of a few thousand Kurdish peasants, you have 100,000 Americans. That is the situation they faced, most of the quotes, are from prior to the WTC coming down, this is not the world it was when the bulk of those statements were made. One of the more damning sentences in this argument is misleading, "Indeed there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." We did not find any, but as I have said many times, give me a desert the size of California and unlimited funds and I will hide whatever you want me to.
Comparing Guantanamo to the Gulag is ridiculous. They are not comparable in scale, design or the tactics used.
If you really believe the President should be impeached, write a letter to your legislators. I am certain Hillary would love it, and that is the intent of Nader obviously. I don't need to write a letter to either of my Senators. Neither has any interest in what I believe, and I never will have a Senator represent my interest unless I move.
As for myself, I deeply believe that the President and Vice President have the best interests of the Country in mind, and are guided by this in all that they do.
Comparing Guantanamo to the Gulag is ridiculous. They are not comparable in scale, design or the tactics used.
If you really believe the President should be impeached, write a letter to your legislators. I am certain Hillary would love it, and that is the intent of Nader obviously. I don't need to write a letter to either of my Senators. Neither has any interest in what I believe, and I never will have a Senator represent my interest unless I move.
As for myself, I deeply believe that the President and Vice President have the best interests of the Country in mind, and are guided by this in all that they do.
Thread Starter
Stuff and things.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,972
Likes: 0
From: New York
mayo - My mistake.
tobra,
"Hillary would love it, and that is the intent of Nader obviously."
That doesn't make any sense. Did you really mean to say that Nader's intention was to make Senator Clinton happy?
"I deeply believe that the President and Vice President have the best interests of the Country in mind, and are guided by this in all that they do."
Maybe they think diminishing civil liberties and driving deep wedges in the American public over issues of religion and public policy are in the best interests of the country, but I think they're wrong. This administration has a disturbing disdain for anyone who disagrees with them. Thats not leadership and its not governance. Its the aggregation of power in order to use it against anyone who disagrees with them, and that has nothing to do with freedom, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
tobra,
"Hillary would love it, and that is the intent of Nader obviously."
That doesn't make any sense. Did you really mean to say that Nader's intention was to make Senator Clinton happy?
"I deeply believe that the President and Vice President have the best interests of the Country in mind, and are guided by this in all that they do."
Maybe they think diminishing civil liberties and driving deep wedges in the American public over issues of religion and public policy are in the best interests of the country, but I think they're wrong. This administration has a disturbing disdain for anyone who disagrees with them. Thats not leadership and its not governance. Its the aggregation of power in order to use it against anyone who disagrees with them, and that has nothing to do with freedom, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
