Finally, and far too late, the networks, the big dailies, and the national news magazines are discovering that the Bush Administration's case for invading Iraq was a combination of willfully gross exaggerations and flat-out lies.
For weeks, various recently leaked or released documents have confirmed that there was little or no evidence in American and British files that even plausibly pointed to an Iraqi threat of either nuclear or other banned weapons or an Iraqi link to Al-Qaeda. Intelligence analysts in both governments did not believe such threats existed; allegations of a threat only materialized when the politicians got involved.
The new documentation of hyped claims, combined with an utter lack of post- invasion evidence that such claims had any basis in fact, are an enormous political scandal in Britain. However, their content does little more than confirm what opponents of the proposed invasion have said since last summer. Even then, it was a staple of opposition to Bush's invasion that intelligence community reports assessed the possibility of the existence of Iraqi WMDs as minimal and Iraq's threat to the U.S. as nonexistent. It was also an opposition staple that the Bush Administration routinely either misrepresented or ignored such expertise, and that most of the endless variety of Bush assertions "proving" either Iraqi WMDs or links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda were on their face preposterous.
The Bush team's strategy of rapidly shifting justifications effectively deflected attention each time actual facts on the ground caught up with the rhetoric; by then, the White House was already hammering on a new reason for its unprovoked war. All this has been known for months by enough people to fuel the instant birth of a massive peace movement in America, and to inspire tens of millions to pour into the streets of cities around the world. The lack of any subsequent supporting discoveries of WMDs or terror links, and the utter disinterest by the British and American governments in finding any, comes as no surprise; a stopped clock is occasionally correct, but usually it's wrong, and usually its owner knows the clock is broken.
But this wasn't a matter of reporting the time; it was a matter of the Bush Administration's swearing to Congress, America, and the world that the legal justification for invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq was based on evidence that did not in fact exist. The Bush Administration made such assertions repeatedly, for over half a year. Such assertions are not simply an appalling campaign of lies. They are an impeachable offense.
For months, various mostly liberal and progressive critics of Bush have been whipping up impeachment calls on the Internet. Such calls have been delusional, boiling down, essentially, to the fact that Bush's critics hate a number of his policies. But there are no pending or existing indictments; no evidence of criminal wrongdoing; and no conceivable political route by which the votes for impeachment could be mustered by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and upheld by two-thirds of a Republican-controlled Senate. Critics may charge that Dubya's administration has been appallingly corrupt, or that it is gutting the Bill of Rights; but so far the corruption has been legal, and conservative federal courts have mostly upheld post-9/11 civil liberties atrocities. George W. Bush has inspired remarkable amounts of hatred amongst many of his critics; but that alone doesn't make impeachment legally viable or politically sustainable. It has been a non-starter.
Until now.
If proven -- and they can, in fact, be proven as such -- the Bush Administration's lies to the United Nations, to the American people, and to Congress in last October's effort to win authority to invade, all constitute an either unwitting or witting effort to put American soldiers in harm's way, guaranteeing the deaths of some. America's military was deployed for reasons Bush and his entire foreign policy apparatus either knew or should have known were fallacious.
They did so anyway, in the service of a war whose unprovoked nature was a sharp departure from international law and norms. Bush claimed as his legal authority last October's Congressional vote. On the eve of that vote, in a major speech aimed at Congress, Bush claimed satellite photos gave irrefutable evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program, and claimed -- mere days after intelligence agencies put the date at 2010 -- that Iraq would have such weapons ready to deploy within a year. "Facing clear evidence of peril," Bush told Congress, America, and the world, "we cannot wait for the final proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
All this was nonsense, and plenty of the administration's own experts had told the White House it was nonsense. From August to March, Bush and his team first insisted they had evidence that did not in fact exist, and then presented evidence, such as Colin Powell's U.N. citations of a forged bill of sales and a plagiarized ten-year-old graduate student paper, that was patently false. In doing so to win approval for an unprovoked and legally unjustifiable war, Bush and his top officials -- including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Paul Wolfowitz -- have done something that (unlike, say, violating international law) is considered an extremely serious affront by much of the American public, Republicans as well as Democrats. They have caused the unnecessary deaths of a lot of U.S. soldiers.
The outrage thus far is coming from the media and from the British example. With a few honorable exceptions, such as Sen. Robert Byrd, it is not coming from Congressional Democrats. Contrast this with the Clinton impeachment, where years of fanatical attempts by Congressional Republicans and right-wing talk radio hosts to impale Clinton over Whitewater had resulted in a special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, whose obsessive efforts finally provided the legal pretext for the Monica Lewinsky charges.
By contrast, this time, given the relative Democratic spinelessness, no attack on the fitness of George W. Bush and his band of neocon zealots can have any traction without widespread public outrage, including support from independents and at least some Republicans.
Corporate corruption and civil liberty attacks don't rise to that level. Misuse of the American military does -- either willfully or through incompetence. Soldiers are sacrosanct to many Americans, especially conservatives. Now, we have learned, the President of the United States has deployed our soldiers on the basis of a threat he knew or should have known did not exist.
The unprovoked invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq should never have happened. Instead, the White House claimed that Bush spent several months allegedly agonizing over whether to launch an invasion he had already approved.
Before and after his secret decision, for at least half a year, his Administration's claims were largely false. If Bush himself didn't know that, he should have.
If he did know it, he has lied to Congress -- just like Clinton -- and to America and the world, but repeatedly and on a far more serious matter than the definition of "sex." Bush, instead, used his lies to intentionally sacrifice the lives of American soldiers -- along with other coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis, soldier and civilian alike.
For this egregious abuse of his oath of office, George W. Bush should be impeached.
Is There Anything Left That Matters?
Jun 08, 2003
By Joan Chittister,OSB
This is what I don't understand: All of a sudden nothing seems to matter. First, they said they wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive." But they didn't get him. So now they tell us that it doesn't matter. Our mission is greater than one man.
Then they said they wanted Saddam Hussein, "dead or alive." He's apparently alive but we haven't got him yet, either. However, President Bush told reporters recently, "It doesn't matter. Our mission is greater than one man."
Finally, they told us that we were invading Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction. Now they say those weapons probably don't exist. Maybe never existed. Apparently that doesn't matter either.
Except that it does matter.
I know we're not supposed to say that. I know it's called "unpatriotic." But it's also called honesty. And dishonesty matters.
It matters that the infrastructure of a foreign nation that couldn't defend itself against us has been destroyed on the grounds that it was a military threat to the world.
It matters that it was destroyed by us under a new doctrine of "pre-emptive war" when there was apparently nothing worth pre-empting.
It surely matters to the families here whose sons went to war to make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction and will never come home.
It matters to families in the United States whose life support programs were ended, whose medical insurance ran out, whose food stamps were cut off, whose day care programs were eliminated so we could spend the money on sending an army to do what did not need to be done.
It matters to the Iraqi girl whose face was burned by a lamp that toppled over as a result of a U.S. bombing run.
It matters to Ali, the Iraqi boy who lost his family — and both his arms — in a U.S. air attack.
It matters to the people in Baghdad whose water supply is now fetid, whose electricity is gone, whose streets are unsafe, whose 158 government ministries' buildings and all their records have been destroyed, whose cultural heritage and social system has been looted and whose cities teem with anti-American protests.
It matters that the people we say we "liberated" do not feel liberated in the midst of the lawlessness, destruction and wholesale social suffering that so-called liberation created.
It matters to the United Nations whose integrity was impugned, whose authority was denied, whose inspection teams are even now still being overlooked in the process of technical evaluation and disarmament.
It matters to the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world, both now and for decades to come, perhaps.
And surely it matters to the integrity of this nation whether or not its intelligence gathering agencies have any real intelligence or not before we launch a military armada on its say-so.
And it should matter whether or not our government is either incompetent and didn't know what they were doing or were dishonest and refused to say.
The unspoken truth is that either as a people we were misled, or we were lied to, about the real reason for this war. Either we made a huge — and unforgivable — mistake, an arrogant or ignorant mistake, or we are swaggering around the world like a blind giant, flailing in all directions while the rest of the world watches in horror or in ridicule.
If Bill Clinton's definition of "is" matters, surely this matters. If a president's sex life matters, surely a president's use of global force against some of the weakest people in the world matters. If a president's word in a court of law about a private indiscretion matters, surely a president's word to the community of nations and the security of millions of people matters.
And if not, why not? If not, surely there is something as wrong with us as citizens, as thinkers, as Christians as there must be with some facet of the government. If wars that the public says are wrong yesterday — as over 70% of U.S. citizens did before the attack on Iraq — suddenly become "right" the minute the first bombs drop, what kind of national morality is that?
Of what are we really capable as a nation if the considered judgment of politicians and people around the world means nothing to us as a people?
What is the depth of the American soul if we can allow destruction to be done in our name and the name of "liberation" and never even demand an accounting of its costs, both personal and public, when it is over?
We like to take comfort in the notion that people make a distinction between our government and ourselves. We like to say that the people of the world love Americans, they simply mistrust our government. But excoriating a distant and anonymous "government" for wreaking rubble on a nation in pretense of good requires very little of either character or intelligence.
What may count most, however, is that we may well be the ones Proverbs warns when it reminds us: "Kings take pleasure in honest lips; they value the one who speaks the truth." The point is clear: If the people speak and the king doesn't listen, there is something wrong with the king. If the king acts precipitously and the people say nothing, something is wrong with the people.
It may be time for us to realize that in a country that prides itself on being democratic, we are our government. And the rest of the world is figuring that out very quickly.
Those who call George W. Bush a liar also call Saddam Hussein history's biggest fool. If I'm Hussein, I know I don't have a hope in hell against America's military might. I have 2 options:
1. Use my weapons of mass destruction against the US and Brits and hope they just leave. Then again, that would turn more of the international communitee against me and prove my arch-rival right.
2. Bail out myself, take my illegal weapons with me, and when America takes over the country, they'll make asses of themselves because they couldn't find anything. Colin Powell already reported that Iraq was moving their weapons away, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that nobody can find them. Hussein's not stupid.
You can move one gignormous weapon in one truck. Hussein had an entire year to hide his **** and drive his trucks to some secret location. Think about this: If he and his crew aren't dead somewhere, they've got guns to people's heads, and he's in the midst of dictating some small town, probably plotting his comback and revenge.
That said, what TIDE are you talking about? How about 30 other countries getting involved at keeping the peace in Iraq? Yes, with troops.
My opinion:
The "threat" of weapons of mass destruction was a fact since it was also the reason Bill CLinton addressed them, AND attacked Iraq himself during his term as president. He also said he was "not sure" what happened to those weapons.
All propoganda. You lefties (and by lefties I mean blindly passionate, not stupid...) seem to do everything in your POWER to attack a republican in office. When Bill CLinton proposed his intentions to the world, they all clapped because of his savvy words and charm. George Bush is nervous, he stutters, and he takes long pauses between sentances, sometimes fusing sentances together turning his speech into a "what-the-hell-did-he-just-say" convention, which makes people nervous. Now, I'm guessing a democrat in office would have passed this off to the U.N. (because lets face it, a Democrat only needs people to "think" they're safe, whether it's true or not). A republican is generally all for desensitzing the nation, to show them how crazy the world really is. Under the wing of a democrat I do feel safe because I can ignore what's happening. A republican says "f*ck that" and opens the curtain to the painful sunlight.
I agree that impeeching a man for lying under oath is a joke, because the oath it's self is a damn joke. Maybe Clinton was being a self-centered jack-ass for cheating on his wife, but WHY drag him through COURT about it? Publicly humiliate him, and slap him in the ass, but let the man do his job. Blah.
So to be fair, it can obviousely be said that both parties will go to extremes to prove their case AND/OR attack eachother. Sift through the ******** and you've only got your FACTS.
Sorry people, but the facts outweigh the propoganda. The war was justified, Bush will be re-elected, and the tide has CALMED.
For all you people who think America is coming to their "senses" about Bush's "lying," tune in to CNN and check out his approval rating, and you'll find and you, my learned friends, are in the minority.
Find the median of the respective percentages of a Fox news poll and a CNN poll and you've got the truth hehe. Not ONE poll is the same, they're usually always biased. Let's have a poll on this sight! Oooo that'd be interesting.
Satan W. Bush does have a good approval rating, that just proves how stupid a majority of my fellow Americans are.
Clinton loved getting his "willie waxed" as do I! But there's not a single area of life that wasn't better with him in office! Satan W. Bush has totally and royally screwed us all and continues to do so exponentially every day.
Originally posted by NothingSacred Satan W. Bush does have a good approval rating, that just proves how stupid a majority of my fellow Americans are.
Clinton loved getting his "willie waxed" as do I! But there's not a single area of life that wasn't better with him in office! Satan W. Bush has totally and royally screwed us all and continues to do so exponentially every day.
In case you haven't noticed Search4truth -- the economy has been improving.
Hussien admitted to "at one time" having those weapons and Bill Clinton himself ACTED on them.
Bush tried to pass a bill to get fule cells but somehow it was not passed... hmmm.... why not? That would have helped the environment more than any "hug a tree" bill.
Stealing elections? lol
The thing that gets me the most is: "They don't care if he ignores many warnings that could of prevented 9/11" because Bush is acting on those warnings right now in Iraq. (If you're not framilliar with the warnings I'm refering to, do a "google" of hussien's biography and his reign as dictator of Iraq)
To be quite honest, I'm very tired, and very bored right now. If I currently had something better to do, I wouldn't have read or replied to your post, but I don't care, it can't hurt.
They don't care if he takes the country to war on lies
War that got the world rid of another dictator IS justified whatever were the 'officials' reasons for it.
They don't care if he steals democracy by stealing the elections
If majority of americans voted for the wrong candidate due to some printing mistake... who's fault is it? If they couldnt take soldiers serving abroad and similar issues into account, who's fault is it?
They don't care if he ignores many warnings that could of prevented 9/11
Rumours only. There is no even little evidence that Bush knew that a terrorist act is planned. CIA warnings sound like 'in the future, probably next 2 to 6 months, a terrorist act could happen, maybe inside USA, maybe somewhere in Tansania'. Go figure.
They don't care if he ignores all Envriomental Policies and contributes to global warming
What should he do? Spend 200 billions on cutting emissions by 0.1%, like it's done in other countries? (abstract numbers)
They don't care if he makes the defecit even larger
Sep.11 act, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, numerour corporate scandals and bankruptcies inside the US... All lead to economic slow down and budget deficite.
They don't care if he creates a terrorist magnet in Iraq
Who's fault it is that small kids are being taught that america and israel are evil, filling young hearts with hatred?
They don't care if the unemployment keeps getting higher in the country
What could government do? Besides trying to boost economy, waiting for stable market?
They don't care if they ignore Saudi Arabia who funds 9/11 hi-jackers
There is Saudi Arabian king, who says that 'we dont fund terrorists'. There is arab community that consists of several very oil rich countries that can easily screw all of us up - just stop supplying oil. USA simply can not go against Saudi Arabia.
THEY DON'T CARE NothingSacred as long as Bush is elected thats all that matters
Were just stupid liberals who don't care about America
And incase you didn't realize I'm being sarcastic
So tell me what would you do if you came to power in 2000? You have economy going into a recession and a possible terrorist act that you know nothing about.
Originally posted by MrJukoVette Originally posted by Search4Truth
They don't care if he steals democracy by stealing the elections
If majority of americans voted for the wrong candidate due to some printing mistake... who's fault is it? If they couldnt take soldiers serving abroad and similar issues into account, who's fault is it?
---------
It has nothing to do with printing mistakes. It has to do with Katherine Harris & Jeb Bush eliminating 90,000 voters in Florida due to the fact that they were felons. The sad reality is 95% minimum of those people were guilty of no crime except for voting democratic
They don't care if he ignores many warnings that could of prevented 9/11
Rumours only. There is no even little evidence that Bush knew that a terrorist act is planned. CIA warnings sound like 'in the future, probably next 2 to 6 months, a terrorist act could happen, maybe inside USA, maybe somewhere in Tansania'. Go figure.
---------
RUMOURS MY ASS, HAVE YOU READ THE 9-11 REPORT? It shows over and over the warnings ignored...here are links showing the warnings ignored by the Bush Administration OVER & OVER AGAIN
They don't care if he ignores all Envriomental Policies and contributes to global warming
What should he do? Spend 200 billions on cutting emissions by 0.1%, like it's done in other countries? (abstract numbers)
---------
We can't sacrafice billions of dollars to make the world last longer?
They don't care if he makes the defecit even larger
Sep.11 act, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, numerour corporate scandals and bankruptcies inside the US... All lead to economic slow down and budget deficite.
---------
SO HE CUTS TAXES??? YEAH, THAT WILL SOLVE THAT PROBLEM!
They don't care if he creates a terrorist magnet in Iraq
Who's fault it is that small kids are being taught that america and israel are evil, filling young hearts with hatred?
---------
They were being taught this is true. But due to our actions we are creating a whole new generation of terrorists for years to come. We can only blame ourselves for its our ACTIONS that are driving them.....when will we learn that we cannot fight fire with fire
They don't care if the unemployment keeps getting higher in the country
What could government do? Besides trying to boost economy, waiting for stable market?
---------
Actually they could of gave higher tax cuts to middle income families which as a result will make them spend more creating more jobs. Als business incentives to create new jobs
They don't care if they ignore Saudi Arabia who funds 9/11 hi-jackers
There is Saudi Arabian king, who says that 'we dont fund terrorists'. There is arab community that consists of several very oil rich countries that can easily screw all of us up - just stop supplying oil. USA simply can not go against Saudi Arabia.
-----------
You think America is a country to get blackmailed? If Bush wanted to do something, he could invade Saudi Arabia tommarrow and take their oil...just like he did with Iraq
Why are you right wingers such hypocrites?
Your all for killing the terrorists, but the country with the most terrorists you want to ignore and be blackmailed by
So tell me what would you do if you came to power in 2000? You have economy going into a recession and a possible terrorist act that you know nothing about.
It has nothing to do with printing mistakes. It has to do with Katherine Harris & Jeb Bush eliminating 90,000 voters in Florida due to the fact that they were felons. The sad reality is 95% minimum of those people were guilty of no crime except for voting democratic
Not true. Those 90,000 voters could not figure out which checkmark is democratic and which one is republican. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris have nothing to do with electors' stupidity.
RUMOURS MY ASS, HAVE YOU READ THE 9-11 REPORT? It shows over and over the warnings ignored...here are links showing the warnings ignored by the Bush Administration OVER & OVER AGAIN
'In the coming weeks, inside USA OR outside it, harming USA and/OR Israel, ...' How could they know? Ofcourse it should be prevented, but what happened already is in the past - look forward.
We can't sacrafice billions of dollars to make the world last longer?
And make deficite even larger?
SO HE CUTS TAXES??? YEAH, THAT WILL SOLVE THAT PROBLEM!
Tax cut to boost economy. Easy as 1-2-3.
They were being taught this is true. But due to our actions we are creating a whole new generation of terrorists for years to come. We can only blame ourselves for its our ACTIONS that are driving them.....when will we learn that we cannot fight fire with fire
They were being taught years before USA attacked Iraq. Clinton's passiveness led to what we have today. 10 years lost due to stupid lefties in power.
Actually they could of gave higher tax cuts to middle income families which as a result will make them spend more creating more jobs. Als business incentives to create new jobs
NO, you have to cut taxes for rich people so that they hire more people and increase their salaries. Also these rich people who get their taxes back can now invest more money into economy. Actually taxes for every range of income were cut, not just highest one.
You think America is a country to get blackmailed? If Bush wanted to do something, he could invade Saudi Arabia tommarrow and take their oil...just like he did with Iraq
NO! If Bush invades Saudi Arabia and does NOT use WMD on them, US will lose. Not only US doesnt have enough ground troops, there are millions of arabs who will stand up to defend their country.
Why are you right wingers such hypocrites?
Your all for killing the terrorists, but the country with the most terrorists you want to ignore and be blackmailed by
It's not ignore rather strategical wait for the right time to act. US can not attack any other country now - it's resources have limits, too.
Actually he knew alot about it
You should read the 9-11 Commission Report
No he did not. He expected threat coming from other groups/militants, and not from Al Qaeda and not such an act in financial capital.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident for Ridicule is the tribute that mediocrity pays to genius
Well then, GENIUS, sit back and accept all the ridicule and opposition that you so richly deserve. . .
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
