Impeachable Lies

Nancy Pelosi got it wrong. Impeachment is not off the table. That's what this whole election is about — the war and those liars who got us there.

President George Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney deceived the American people in the lead-up to the Iraqi war about many things -- including yellow cake, aluminum canisters, and biological weapons.

Bush lied about the yellow cake, using the famous 16 words at the State of the Union address in January 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush had been told that that information was based on forged documents signed by two officials—one of whom was not even in office at the time of the signatures.

It took 15 minutes for a CIA employee to confirm that the document giving permission to transfer the 500 or so tons of uranium (yellow cake) was a fake once he was able to see a copy of it. Even CIA director George "slam dunk" Tenant advised the president to not use this information in the State of the Union speech. Condi Rice later said that if it was in the State of the Union speech, it was cleared by the CIA -- circular reasoning.

Former Niger ambassador Joe Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame, had gone to Niger and discovered that the document made no sense, but the Bush administration needed to persuade the American people to jump on board the "War to Liberate Iraq," as Fox called it, and "the War for Iraqi Freedom" as WCCO news anchor Don Shelby still calls it.

Cheney said the canisters found in Iraq were "aluminum tubes that are only suited for nuclear weapons programs." This was a lie. He told New York Times journalist Judy Miller about them. She reported this in the paper and both Cheney and Rice cited the Times as a second-source of the centrifuging canisters, a deception. United Nations WMD inspector David Kay reported that "the aluminum tubes -- that test data was cooked, and it was portrayed upward in a very dishonest fashion."

The biological weapons-on-rails-and-wheels-laboratories, suitable for making dangerous bacteria or poisonous toxins, was a lie. They were likely for making helium or hydrogen for weather balloons. Yet the Bush administration continued to claim over and over that they were for biological weapons.

The sole source for this information came from an Iraqi "alcoholic and undependable" engineering student who was a relative of Ahmed Chalabi. No American ever talked to this student. The Germans who passed on this information could not confirm a syllable of it. Chalabi himself was discredited as a known liar after the war started. He fed other lies about Saddam's nuclear program and the mushroom cloud that Bush claimed could be 45 minutes away.

In the lead-up to the war, the Bush administration had never requested a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) about WMD. Such an omission for such a critical issue was unheard of under past administrations. But this was the extent of the "I'm right" arrogance, the "overconfidence" of Cheney and Bush.

The Senate Intelligence Committee insisted that there be such a study. These studies take months or frequently years to prepare. The CIA came out with one in two weeks. It was an advocacy document, not an objective white paper, filled with mostly old information from the 1990s and about five or six new items. Three of them are included here.

Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff Richard Libby visited the analysts 10 times during that period. Usually someone from the White House comes to visit the CIA only on award presentation days. These guys tried to direct the investigation, putting pressure on operatives to, according to Paul Pellar, "Look here again," "Turn over this stone."

Pellar, a National Intel. Officer who helped write the document, described the situation: "There was clear tension." Former CIA officer Vincent Cannestraro said the NIE report on Weapons of Mass Destruction "was a fatally flawed document and it should never have seen the light of day."

This is how the president and the vice president misled the nation. How they cherry-picked information, left out information, outright lied to the American people about the most serious issue a people can face -- war. They took us to battle under false pretenses, and they are guilty of treason. They should be held accountable by Congress, impeached, and jailed for life, because the blood of over 2,800 Americans and many thousands of Iraqis is on their hands.

Nancy Pelosi drank the Kool-Aid. Hillary drank the Kool-Aid. Kerry, McCain all blindly supported the rush to war, even though much of the evidence about WMD was known to be based on lies, unquestioned assumptions, twisted facts, and hidden information before the vote. Members of Congress jumped on the bandwagon so as to appear tough on terrorism after 9/11.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney should sit in jail for the rest of their lives and this election could help send them there. Impeachment is not off the table to millions of voters and to many of the candidates running for Congress this election year.

Sigh....some people drone on and on about lies all while being liars themselves...

Here is what we knew preceeding Bush's election and what Clinton didn't really care to deal with... Known before 1998.

*That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

*That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gases.

*That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

*That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

*That Iraq had produced 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

*That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

*That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

*That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

*That German intelligence had concluded Iraq had nuclear weapons programs that could produce a bomb within three years.

For years, the Iraqi government never explained or even tried to tell us what had beome of the huge quantities of deadly weapons it had produced. When asked to produce eveidence of the weapons being gone, or even documentation of the destruction of these weapons...

At the closing of the year 1997, the limitation on inspectors caused an international crisis. Clinton's administration demanded the inspectors be given full access to Saddam's palaces and as a result, Saddam kicked out the U.N.'s inspectors, and even threatened to shoot the planes down.

I don't know about you, but why is the U.N. so easily bullied out of important decisions as such? And why was nothing done til Bush was in office?

In 1998, Clinton prepared for war on Iraq. On Feb 17, Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon to explain to the American people why war was necessary...

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to that declaration, Iraq would simply just amend the reports. EXample: Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months. and its submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which was rejected by UNSCOM.

Then and only then did Iraq submit even more info...

Iraq admitted an offensive bio warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum which causes botulism. 2,000 gallons of antrhax, 25 biological filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs. Again UNSCOM still said Iraq was understating what it had.

So tell me that the evidence was faulty. I laugh at your presumption. The people like yourself who stood in the way of the war allowed Saddam to hide and sell his nuclear weapons.

How about the reports from John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security, noting massive convoy movements into Syria? Or Ryan Mauro, who was written on this very subject with reports and facts to back him up?

It seems to me that people like yourself are riled up in a hatred of a man, for whatever the reason, and are trying to do anything to him to hurt him. Nancy Pelosi has said both that impeachment is off the table and that it is their top priority. Go figure.

Regardless of who wins, Bush will not be impeached. I am predicting that the House will stay as it is now, and if not a little more with Republican seats taken from the stunts that the Democrats have tried this October.

Way to go, Ken, keeping it real for the factually challenged.

You miss my point about the lead-up to the war.

I am not arguing that Bush, Clinton, Pelosi should have known that there were not weapons of mass destruction. I believed there were WMDs. We all believed that Saddam had WMDs, that he was a dangerous guy, a liar, and that Iraq had poison gas and other WMD in the 1990s. But can you lie about this in order to prove what you believe?

Can I as a salesman tell my client that Shyster, Inc. is coming out with a cure for cancer, when my source of information comes exclusively from an article in the National Enquirer next to the article about giving birth to a space alien?

What if I really, really believe that Shyster, Inc. will go to the moon? No.

What if it goes to the moon? Does that justify my deception? Again, Ken, no. That is wrong.

If we had invaded Iraq and found nuclear weapons, and sarin gas, and everything we expected, would that have justified misleading the nation about going to war? No.

Should the Bush administration have done its due diligence before going to war? Yes. Did they? No. They rushed to war. Bush did not want to wait until hot weather because he was told the helicopters and troops would have more difficulty then.

David Kay, the UN weapons inspector, said that he needed more time to find these weapons. He thought they were there. But he could not prove it. Bush could not wait for real proof. He and Cheney knew they were right.

We all thought there were weapons of mass destruction, but we did not have proof. A responsible leader does not put lives at risk because of gut feel. He must have real proof.

When George Tenant presented the case to Bush in the Oval Office for WMDs, Bush said, “Is that all there is?” (I’m not sure if this is a direct quote, but the meaning is correct according to my source, “Frontline,” some time last winter.)

Bush pressured Tenant into building a case out of a) a drunken student, b) the testimony from a man, Al-Libbi, sent to Egypt to be tortured who recanted his testimony about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, c) obviously forged and discredited documents. These are only sources for some of the claims.

Tenant, a personal friend of the president, “traded integrity for access,” said David Kay. Later Tenant came back to the White House and said, “It’s a slam dunk.” Bush knew the evidence was not credible and/or he refused to examine the evidence to see if it was credible. That was wrong.

He was told that the yellow cake info. was not sustainable. The CIA director told him that, but he went with it anyway.

So I am not arguing that 8,500 liters of anthrax or 107,500 casings for chemical weapons did not exist. We all knew that Saddam had WMDs at one time. I am arguing that one cannot lie to the American people about reasons for going to war without being held accountable.

Well Jim, please define the reason you claim we went to war then. I assume you have some proof, as opposed to an article next to the alien baby you speak of?

But let us look at your arguements individually...

Bush rushed into war:

I presume this to mean he saw Saddam, thought POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY and the next day flew into the middle of Iraq bombs blazing. The facts are a stubborn thing Jim.

If you believe that the lead-up started with UN resolution 1441 (in all actuality it started earlier than that, but it is a good non-disputable date of conflict origin), gives four months of time before operations start. 1441 was a last chance effort for Saddam to lay everything out and allow unrestricted access to everywhere in Iraq.

Then you assail the intelligence, saying Bush KNEW (abosultely no doubt in your mind he knew, again the page after the alien baby) that the intelligence was faulty when on January 30th, the C.I.A. published an unclassified report to Congress that stated, “Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could aid in reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program.” This is the same CIA that was under the gun for ignoring reports that people were going to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center.

Alas, George Tenent is not a presidential friend. I find that laughable. If you cannot even get that basic piece of info right, I can't see why I should even try to investigate your other claims. Tenant was appointed by Clinton, supported widely by Democrats.

So here we are again at your assumption that Bush went into Iraq for something other than WMDs. He widely stated that, he still states that to this day, and unless you can provide some evidence aside from an article "exclusively from an article in the National Enquirer next to the article about giving birth to a space alien", please refrain from lying to people in such an absurd manner.

Putting aside for now the details of this debate, it's clear to me that the fact that we're even still debating this proves Jim's point entirely.

There should never be a reason for people, three years into any war, to still be debating the legitimacy of undertaking the conflict.

The reason should be self-evident and support for the war should be auto-catalytic, that is, the more we fight, the more boys and girls come home in coffins, the stronger our resolve should be.

The opposite has happened in Iraq, and I contend that this has everything to do with Americans' overwhelming feeling that they were duped. Their eyes were still hazy from 9/11, reasonable people still wanted revenge, courageous people were still afraid and we (not me) were easily manipulated into thinking this war was somehow the answer.

Well, three years later and we still have no answers, and the fact that we can still be arguing over the purpose is indicative of the failure.

Today it was reported that a top US Military officer in Iraq has recommended to the civilian leadership that we must leave Baghdad immediately-- that our crackdown on sectarian violence is making things worse. Worse! This is no liberal bleeding heart on Nancy Pelosi's payroll, these are the generals the President is so fond of deferring decisions on the ground to. Will he listen?

Regardless, when the generals start talking truth to power, there is nobody left to support the cause except knee-jerk Bush apologists and isolated crackpots who will never admit they were wrong about every facet of this war from day one.

Usually, they are the same people.

cjb, I have not heard of this top military official...What is his name?

Also, people are still debating our involvement in Korea, WW II and WW I...Hell, there are people talking that we shouldn't have fought the Revolutionary War. Just because people are still debating whether we should have done it or not does not mean it was the wrong decision.

No matter how you spin it..Bush and his cronies are liars.

It's interesting that anyone who tried to object to going to war was vilified. Then the generals who tried to give sane advice on how the war should be conducted, once it became obvious it was a done deal regardless, were set aside and forced out.

Let's not forget that many of those WMDs that all the fear was whipped up about by the Bush administration, which they cited had been used against some of their own people in the past, were provided by the USA. And this country stood by when those people were slaughtered. Those people stood up to Saddam because they were told they had the backing and support of the United States.

I'm finding it very interesting that many of Bush's own party are beginning to speak out more and more against him and his administration's tactics. Long time and well known conservatives are speaking out about the whittling away of civil liberties in the name of "being safe from terrorists."

The passage of the "Detainee and Interrogation" legislation is extremely disturbing to me. The death of habeas corpus, giving Bush the right to arrest, hold and question anyone, he sees fit, is frightening to me.

The fact that an individual would not have the right to challenge that detention, that they could be held as long as the "President" wants, that any heresay evidence could be used against them. That they don't have the right to see that evidence, that they don't have the right to legal representation..all of this sends chills through me.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not reassured when the Bush administration tells us that it won't be misused, when it has been misused even before the adminstration was forced to admit the abuses and asked for the legislation.

I would suggest that if your name is too Arab sounding, you'd better change it. Be careful who you hang around with. And for heaven's sake, make sure your tan doesn't get too dark.

Personally, I think we have a bunch of sociopaths running the country. I can't forget the image of Bush's mother in the civic center in Houston, after Katrina, looking around imperiously and saying, "Well, they're disadvantaged anyway, so this is good." What kind of unfeeling person would even think that, let alone say it?

What does that have to do with this topic you ask? Well I'm sure you've heard that saying, "an apple doesn't fall far from the tree." This is the woman who raised the president. I think his actions and policies pretty much reflect that attitude. This man and his administration, in spite of his lip service, does not care about the common man, no matter where they are, here or in Iraq.

Jeanette,

Maybe you should read a little more before you begin speaking about things you obviously have no clue about. The weapons used by Saddam were documented to have been created by Saddam. The only weapons that were given to him were when we had a common enemy, and he used them all at that time.

The detainee bill does nothing to American citizens. If you are a citizen sitting in your home, the president can't just walk in and take you away in the middle of the night. That is still against the law.

It does, however, allow him to grab any non-citizens and anyone caught fighting troops on foreign soil and hold them without trial. If he wants to take you, he still needs to provide evidence. Perhaps you should read the bills that are passed rather than believing hype passed off by a bunch of reporters who didn't read it either.

Ken says "The detainee bill does nothing to American citizens. If you are a citizen sitting in your home, the president can't just walk in and take you away in the middle of the night. That is still against the law. "

Ken, I'm not trying to be rude, but I suggest you go read the law. Consider consulting an attorney or look for discussions on Web sites dedicated to legal issues. The bill does grant the president the power to declare you - in your living room - as an enemy combatant - even if you're a US citizen - and lock you up.

Once you are designated as such, you lose your rights to habeus corpus (i.e. confronting your accusers in court) and hearsay evidence, or evidence gained through 'aggressive' interrogations, is allowed to be used against you at your trial.

bsimon, yes you are trying to be rude as the bill itself, ESPECIALLY on the habeus corpus is quite strict:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

That is the language of the bill.

Do you know what an ALIEN is? NON-US CITIZEN. Again, before speaking on matters that you have not even READ please refrain from making comments.

Let me go even further in the EXPLICIT definition of who is triable by military tribunals:

Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions

`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

The bill passed has NOTHING to do with who can and can not be tried, it establishes military tribunals and does nothing to AMERICAN CITIZENS rights.

It is better to be thought a fool, bsimon, than to open your mouth and prove it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109HT6gwt::

There is the whole bill so you can read it. It's not that hard. Seriously.

Jim, Right on brother!!!!!! Come join us on the Lake Street bridge on Wednesdays 5pm-6pm and Protest this hideous War.

Ken, why the antagonism? Is civil discourse so difficult?

The following provisions appear to conflict with your claims that U.S. citizens are not subject to the MCA. For instance, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen would qualify for trials defined in this act, as follows:

Sec. 948a. Definitions
`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--

`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

* please note that the above does not make exceptions based on alien status *

Sec. 948d. Jurisdiction of military commissions

`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

* this basically says the President or Sec of Defense can say "you're an enemy combatant." *

Sec. 950j. Finality or proceedings, findings, and sentences

`(b) Provisions of Chapter Sole Basis for Review of Military Commission Procedures and Actions- Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

* this says that no other courts have jurisdiction to question rulings of military commissions convened under this act. *

bsimon, the civil discourse ends when you purport lies as truths without having done even the most basic research into a topic.

So Bush can call you an enemy combatant...So what? Do you live in fear of the local sheriff accusing you falsely of a crime you didn't commit?

You have blathered on and on about how you lose habeus corpus and military tribunals will snatch you in your sleep, but you have still yet to point out anywhere in the bill that puts AMERICAN CITIZENS at risk of those jeopardies. In fact, you have proved my point in that you found no passage allowing for American citizens to be tried in a military tribunal because, as I have already pointed out, it is limited to ALIENS.

I will accept your apology whenever you decide that you are big enough to give it.

Ken, while the section you quote alleges to limit the act's influence to aliens, other sections, such as those I've quoted, appear to circumvent that limitation. Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, is currently faced with a trial in these tribunals as an enemy combatant. If what you claim is true -- that the act is only applicable to alien enemy combatants -- then Jose Padilla would not be subject to the law. Seeing how he is, your claim is thrown out the window.

Therefore, no apology from me to you is necessary.

Regarding your allegations regarding lies, truths and basic research, I suggest that you are flat out wrong, and know not jack about what you speak.

Are you behind the times? Padilla is being tried in civilian courts, not tribunals.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0E11FA395A0C718EDDA10894DE404482&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fP%2fPadilla%2c%20Jose

Also note that he is considered a "former enemy combatant."

Please learn to read and stop perpetuating lies of this type.

There has still been no refutation of the point that U.S. civilians can be identified as enemy combatants, and thus tried under the MCA. The selection Ken quotes explicitly denies habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants. Elsewhere in the act are provisions that could allow U.S. citizens to be 1) identified as enemy combatants and 2) denied habeas corpus.

bsimon, there has already, if you haven't read it, again it applies only to ALIEN enemy combatants as EXPLICITLY stated already.

You still owe me an apology for intentionally lying about Padilla, who has been in civilian courts for almost a year now. You owe me an apology for not pointing out anywhere where U.S. citizens are being denied habeas corpus.

Your quotes state nowhere that U.S. citizens can be tried in a military tribunal. In fact my quote states that only aliens are subject to military tribunal alone. Or maybe you missed the "Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and notwithstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision).

Know what that means? That means that if you have habeas corpus rights (American citizens) you are allowed to have them.

bsimon, you owe me an apology beyond words, and it sickens me that you intentionally lie even after reading the text of the passed bill.

Ken, I apologize to readers for being mistaken about Padilla, who was held for three and a half years as an enemy combatant. This January, his case was moved to a federal court, where it still has not made it to trial. That trial is scheduled for January 2007, four years and seven months after he was first incarcerated.

There is plenty of controversy over the MCA, whether you choose to admit it or not. The law is not clear about how U.S. civilians would be treated under the law, despite the one paragraph that cites alien enemy combatants.

There are plenty of legal experts who find the language non-specific in this and other areas. There are already court challenges to the law regarding its constitutionality.

Your denial of this neither makes you right nor me wrong. Your expectation of an apology is unreasonable and shall remain unfulfilled.