Unsafe At Any Term
Finally, it's safe to like Ralph Nader again. He's calling for Bush's impeachment, and Cheney's, too, in this Boston Globe piece, written with Kevin Zeese:
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."
What do you think was their motivation for lying?
Gosh, dat's a big surprise...a government honcho lying...you must always, always do and believe the opposite of what is being said. Not just in North America, but anywhere, at any time.
"There is nothing happening at Chernobyl"
"I never had sex with that woman"
"The Earth is the center of the Universe"
...etc.
The Mad Hungarian at June 1, 2005 5:54 AM
They have 115 billion proven barrels of good reason. Oh, and government contracts.
eric at June 1, 2005 10:34 AM
I also think it was about the oil, plain and simple.
Just for the record: Prior to the war I was one of the very few people over here in "Old Europe" who actually believed that Bush and Blair knew something about mass destruction weapons in Iraq that would be revealed later. I really couldn't imagine them not to deliver any evidence at all; they would be kicked out of their offices just for starters, wouldn't they?
Super gullible me...
Rainer at June 1, 2005 11:04 AM
The latest right-wing conspiracy theorists are saying that the WMDs were Russian and that the Russians got them out of Iraq before the arrival of the troops. Ermm... I don't think so.
I'm pretty sure it was the oil.
Goddyss at June 1, 2005 12:56 PM
Even if you're willing to grant the Neocons the most benign interpretation, that they have a vision of spreading Democracy to the middle east via a domino effect -- they still have no right to lie to Congress and the American people, wholly fabricating a pretext for this invasion. And Congress should really be condemned for letting them do it. There's a reason why only Congress has the authority to declare war, and allowing every President of what, the last 40 years or so, simply declare "police actions" rather than wars is an abdication of duty almost as despicable as the treasonous acts of the current administration.
Not that it bothers me or anything....
Frank at June 1, 2005 5:10 PM
Another good article on the impeachment movement. And a new website, AfterDowningStreet.Org.
I doubt it will happen, but I'm glad to see people raising the issue.
Frank at June 1, 2005 5:34 PM
Again? Yawanna? Me too!
> they still have no right to lie to Congress
> and the American people...
So far, so good...
> wholly fabricating a pretext for this invasion.
Wholly? So you're saying there was no reason to believe that he had WMDs and wanted more?
So anyone who said there were WMDs was a liar, right? Including Bill, Hillary, Gore, Kennedy, Chirac, Cohen, Byrd, and Albright... (Quotes on request. Make my day...)
I'd bet a thousand dollars that no commenter here ever complained about the no fly zones, though they were on the front page of the paper twice a month for ten years. Apparently some violent death in Iraq is OK, as long as you can pretend that you have no responsibility for it.
It's interesting that this line of argument is still being pursued. But we all enjoy whacking whacking a dead pony now and then.
Crid at June 1, 2005 10:49 PM
Crid, Bush's claim to have proof of
WMDs was the condition under which they started the oil war.
A lot of people (including me) are still waiting for
a) that proof, or
b) some sort of media coverage against all the President's men, finally leading to George's resignation, impeachment, public flogging, whatever.
And not everybody who believed in the existence of WMD's is a liar; everybody who claims to have proof he actually doesn't have, well, sounds like a liar to me.
And the fact that this pony is quite dead is very bad news for any democracy, I think.
Rainer at June 2, 2005 6:48 AM
Crid, your day is made. Supply those quotes. Go ahead, post those same old tired quotes that I have seen (and refuted) time and time again. Make my day.
Patrick at June 2, 2005 5:14 PM
> Bush's claim to have proof of
> WMDs was the condition under which
> they started the oil war.
It's simply not true. Yes, Bush and his team said there were WMDs, as did most everyone else. And it's certain that Bush leaned too heavily on this point, at least in political terms... As a practical matter, I'm relieved to now *KNOW* that Saddam & Sons have no weapons to point at people. But were not the fundamental point of BUsh's sales pitch for the (often popular) war, as the better outlets acknowledged at the time. Americans didn't spend February of 2003 worrying that their grade schools were going to be choked with Saddam's mustard gas. Kerry tried to override a fresh memory, and it cost him the election.
> flogging, whatever.
People who think Bush sold this entirely on WMDs are invariably the ones who hate him the most. Isn't that interesting?
> very bad news for any democracy,
> I think.
This reminds me of Amy's tic, "being afraid". Polite people don't cluck. I already feel bad about being sarcastic earlier.
Listen, if you want to hate Bush, there are plenty of good reasons.
Crid at June 2, 2005 5:22 PM
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
Cridland at June 2, 2005 5:31 PM
Crid -- you're gonna get that "blue screen of death" stare from some people. The kind that can't believe there is a written record of what government officials say. (For more details, Google the quote's content.)
Thanks, Frank, for pointing out the role of Congress once again!
Radwaste at June 2, 2005 8:44 PM
"So anyone who said there were WMDs was a liar, right? Including Bill, Hillary, Gore, Kennedy, Chirac, Cohen, Byrd, and Albright."
But we hate all of those people too, Crid. All of them. ALL! HATE!
Lena at June 2, 2005 9:05 PM
Know who I hate? The VIRGINS... Self-righteous little weenies who imagine the wealth of their lives, and the wretchedness of the Middle East, to be a righteous happenstance. As if we *hadn't* been brutally meddling in that part of the world for their whole lives.
Baby Boomers are known for being pissy and self-righteous with their parents, and insolent towards heritage. George W. Bush, the alcoholic, dyslexic, faith-addled, draft-dodging business failure and rancher wannabe, may serve as history's most poignant example of this phenomenon. His father was the product of the whitest, most exclusive blueblood crowd. Bush 41 (and his generation) gave us all the CIA spookery and UN pandering in the world; Bush 43 has taken a profoundly different path.
Crid at June 2, 2005 10:02 PM
I mean, if you took Dollar Bill seriously after he stated that he did not inhale.
Mad Hungarian at June 3, 2005 5:17 AM
> The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq
> inspection team reported in 1998, ''there
> were no indications of Iraq having achieved
> its program goals(....)"
Given Blix' assurances in other conflicts, and the outcomes which followed, was there any reason to have faith?
Crid at June 3, 2005 6:49 AM
Uh, Crid, without having to go through the idiocy of your quotes point by point, you might want to check the dates of some of them. You might also want to learn the difference between having "weapons" (of unspecified type), wmds, and having a weapons of mass destruction "program." Hello, McFly? Anyone home?
Patrick at June 3, 2005 7:10 AM
Hitch & Mick at Skirball on the 8th. Be there or be square.
Crid at June 3, 2005 11:14 PM
A talk on Thomas Jefferson, even from someone with an elegant English accent, sounds like a pretty square evening to me. Matt Miller does, however, have definite babe tendencies. What will you be wearing, Crid?
Lena-doodle-doo at June 4, 2005 5:11 AM
The nerves & patience of westside lefties seated nearby.
Cridland at June 4, 2005 7:45 AM
I heard Huffington and Maher at the Skirball a couple of years ago. The average age of the audience was probably 74. I thought a round of armchair aerobics was going to break out at any moment.
Lena at June 4, 2005 11:25 AM
I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $10851. Isn't that crazy!
Betsy Markum at February 16, 2006 4:52 AM
Leave a comment