1
   

Isn't it time to impeach Bush?

 
 
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:32 am
Memo: Bush Made Intel Fit Iraq Policy
By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Knight Ridder

Washington - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that US intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the US invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls for comment on Thursday.

A former senior US official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," the memo reported he said.

Straw reportedly proposed that Saddam be given an ultimatum to readmit United Nations weapons inspectors, which could help justify the eventual use of force.

Powell in August 2002 persuaded Bush to make the case against Saddam at the United Nations and to push for renewed weapons inspections.

But there were deep divisions within the White House over that course of action. The British document says that the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the UN route."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush for an explanation of the document's charges, an aide said.

-------
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,492 • Replies: 112
No top replies

 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 06:40 am
Yes
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:02 am
past time
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:08 am
Yes, yes, yes, and hell yes!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:13 am
Were you possibly aware that you need certain specific grounds for impeachment?
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:19 am
Bush shouldn't be impeached. He should be thrown into the deepest pit in hell and be raped by demons for an eternity.

I'd pay to watch that.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:21 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Were you possibly aware that you need certain specific grounds for impeachment?


What does that have to do with it? We think he should be impeached. What's it to ya? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:26 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Were you possibly aware that you need certain specific grounds for impeachment?


What does that have to do with it? We think he should be impeached. What's it to ya? Laughing

Oh, nothing, if it's just an unrealistic fantasy. Please proceed. You know, of course, that the actual truth is that when he dies decades from now, he will be wealthy, happy, and have been the recipient of numerous honors and awards? Go right ahead, though.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:34 am
Well gee, the fact that he attacked a country, killing thousands of innocent people for no good reason might call for impeachment!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Were you possibly aware that you need certain specific grounds for impeachment?


What does that have to do with it? We think he should be impeached. What's it to ya? Laughing

Oh, nothing, if it's just an unrealistic fantasy. Please proceed. You know, of course, that the actual truth is that when he dies decades from now, he will be wealthy, happy, and have been the recipient of numerous honors and awards? Go right ahead, though.


and then into the burning pit of hell with Hitler, Napoleon, Alexander, Hussein, Bin Laden, Cheney, and a host of other contemporaries where he will be able to serve his real Lord for eternity. Cool
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:38 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Bush shouldn't be impeached. He should be thrown into the deepest pit in hell and be raped by demons for an eternity.

I'd pay to watch that.


I like this idea much better :-D

<standing in line to watch and take pictures>
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 07:51 am
I would like to throw the first shovel full of earth on his grave. Whether he was dead or not would matter little.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:04 am
But - in all seriousness, if there is reasonable evidence that he "fixed" intelligence around a casus belli, ought that not to be grounds for impeachment?

Is there no expectation of honest dealing in such matters in the USA? About a goddamn WAR????? Where people die and all?

It would be bloody serious in Oz and the UK.
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:09 am
bm
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:12 am
au
Me too ;-)

Dlowan
I couldn't agree more. It would be huge here in Canada as well!
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:13 am
It would have been big in the former United Staes Of America as well, but things have changed.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 08:59 am
They sure have, throbber :-(
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:00 am
Quote:


http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

Won't happen. No way with a Republican majority.

But, it should! High Crimes and misdemeaners, Abuse of power, and with more information coming out about the ties between Delay, Abramoff and the White House, there's likely to be other grounds.

Among Nixon's charge's for impeachment were misuse of the CIA, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. Those would certainly fit Bush AND Cheney.

Impeach BOTH!
0 Replies
 
LionTamerX
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:01 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
It would have been big in the former United Staes Of America as well, but things have changed.


True and true...
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2005 09:13 am
Now we know why Bush, Cheney and Rice refused to speak to Congress under oath. Remember the huge deal made about that?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Isn't it time to impeach Bush?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 12:29:20