Justify the Iraq invasion in no uncertain terms.
Put up or shut up.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml
This has a good account of what happened:
"But CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports that before the State of the Union speech was delivered, CIA officials warned members of the president’s National Security Council staff that the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
According to sources, White House officials responded that a September dossier issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has…sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
As long as the statement was attributed to British intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections."
So the CIA clearly believed that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to make the claim. They only dropped their objections because the SOTU statement was phrased in terms of a claim by the Brits. The statement may not have been a lie technically but it was highly deceitful to say the least since the administration had its own experts disputing the underlying claim.
The bottom line is that the administration had no business repeating the British claims when their own experts were skeptical. They should have demanded evidence from the British, compared it to the CIA evidence and only accepted the British story if their evidence was superior. There is no evidence they did this; they just repeated the British story because it was convenient.
Well, so much for “the buck stops here,” and big talk about personal responsibility.
The Niger uranium sale has been posted about here since it first came up as a basis for the conclusion that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons. It got about as much play as the aluminum tubes that were positive and unmistakable evidence that Iraq was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
Now we are treated the specter of semantic disputes about the difference between “false” and “likely not true.” A stand up guy just says “I relied on questionable information, but I relied in good faith” takes his lumps and gets it behind him. A stand up guy does not send his shills out to say they just found out there was a question or to point at the people who said the information was questionable and say it is all the their fault because they did not waive their red flag hard enough.
On these boards the response is to demand authority citations to matters of fact that have been discussed and repeatedly cited for months.
At this point it does not make any difference whether the Administration did a flim-flam job or not. The great bulk of the electorate seems to be of a mind that it was a good thing to attack Iraq based on any phony baloney pretext that would float at the moment. Now the problem is having invaded Iraq, having conquered Iraq, having occupied Iraq, what the hell do we do with it now?
Well, so much for “the buck stops here,” and big talk about personal responsibility.
The Niger uranium sale has been posted about here since it first came up as a basis for the conclusion that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons. It got about as much play as the aluminum tubes that were positive and unmistakable evidence that Iraq was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
Now we are treated the specter of semantic disputes about the difference between “false” and “likely not true.” A stand up guy just says “I relied on questionable information, but I relied in good faith” takes his lumps and gets it behind him. A stand up guy does not send his shills out to say they just found out there was a question or to point at the people who said the information was questionable and say it is all the their fault because they did not waive their red flag hard enough.
On these boards the response is to demand authority citations to matters of fact that have been discussed and repeatedly cited for months.
At this point it does not make any difference whether the Administration did a flim-flam job or not. The great bulk of the electorate seems to be of a mind that it was a good thing to attack Iraq based on any phony baloney pretext that would float at the moment. Now the problem is having invaded Iraq, having conquered Iraq, having occupied Iraq, what the hell do we do with it now?
Oh, I see that someone has mentioned this already.
It probably deserves repeating.
Well, so much for “the buck stops here,” and big talk about personal responsibility.
The Niger uranium sale has been posted about here since it first came up as a basis for the conclusion that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons. It got about as much play as the aluminum tubes that were positive and unmistakable evidence that Iraq was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
Now we are treated the specter of semantic disputes about the difference between “false” and “likely not true.” A stand up guy just says “I relied on questionable information, but I relied in good faith” takes his lumps and gets it behind him. A stand up guy does not send his shills out to say they just found out there was a question or to point at the people who said the information was questionable and say it is all the their fault because they did not waive their red flag hard enough.
On these boards the response is to demand authority citations to matters of fact that have been discussed and repeatedly cited for months.
At this point it does not make any difference whether the Administration did a flim-flam job or not. The great bulk of the electorate seems to be of a mind that it was a good thing to attack Iraq based on any phony baloney pretext that would float at the moment. Now the problem is having invaded Iraq, having conquered Iraq, having occupied Iraq, what the hell do we do with it now?
Here’re some more interesting takes on the story;
Been there done that in other threads. This one is about whether Bush told a lie on january 28th.
You want to talk about something else, that’s fine. I’m not obligated to follow suit.
Thanks for quoting that CBS article that they’ve already changed for it’s innacuracies on at least one occasion.
Those unattributed sources do say salacious things, don’t they?
Actually, it’s supposed to be a discussion of IF Bush lied then what.
Do you have a link to the corrections for the CBS article?
You obviously missed everything.
Particularly:
- There’s discretion, and there’s priorities. Obviously, field commanders should always have enough discretion to do their jobs.
But somebody else decides what their job is. In this case, that would be Bush and his national security advisers, with Bush having the final word.
In this case, their job was to get to Baghdad. But they had the latitude to decide that securing WMDs was not part of their job. Not just in extreme circumstances, but in pretty much any normal circumstances. Because they all just drove by the supposed WMD sites, and waved cheerily. And when they’d driven by, the looters moved in and stripped the sites to the ground.
This made it not part of their job. And it was the Administration that made the call: if, on your way to Baghdad, you feel you can spare the troops to secure WMD sites you find, then great; but if you can’t, it’s no big deal really.
- Rumsfeld personally cutting theatre troop strength down to the bone, to show the military brass how little they’d need to actually take Baghdad with.
Kinda predisposes field commanders not to use their discretion for anything that doesn’t help them get to Baghdad, doesn’t it?
- Bush didn’t seem to think part of the mission had gone undone as a result of our failure to secure the WMD sites. Did he tell those folks on the aircraft carrier, “Take down that banner, we failed to get the WMDs?” Hell, no. Since the war, when has he told us, “We’ve got to be on guard for those Iraqi WMDs being used against us by terrorists”? He hasn’t.
If he believes there may have been WMDs there, which would now likely be in unfriendly hands, he should be sounding the alert. If not, he’s a fucking traitor, and should not be just impeached, but tried for treason.
The Clinton impeachment was brought about by many things, but the BJs rank low on the list. Clinton committed perjury in sworn testimony. Period. End of sentence.
Now. Get proof that Bush lied. Rock solid proof. A stained dress, DNA, a Watergate break-in, or something. Then, take Bush into a room with a group of attorneys and ask him a direct question. If he parses words (“That depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”) in an attempt to outfox the process, if he attempts (or gives the appearance of attempting) to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses, if he lies, and if he lies under oath, impeach his ass.
If not, find a better way to promote the Democratic agenda and move beyond simply hating this man.
Impeachment is just a serious inquest to determine the facts of a serious allegation of doing harm to the nation. Impeachment doesn’t begin once proof has been established. Impeachment is like a trial. It happens to prove the truthfulness of allegations of wrong-doing.
Clinton was impeached, but not found guilty.
Ahem.
It happens to prove or disprove the truthfulness of allegations of wrong-doing.
Your standard reduces “high crimes and misdemeanors” to “perjury”. Nixon wasn’t alleged to have committed perjury, but if he had fought impeachment, he would have been impeached, and would have been removed from office. Period.
The charge in an impeachment trial against Bush would be one of those that was applied to Nixon - abuse of power. Using the U.S. military to invade sovereign nations for private reasons certainly makes the grade, IMHO.
Scylla’s waving his hands so fast he’s about to lift off. I’m going to annoy him further by spelling out exactly how serious this incident may be.
Some of the rest of you may be interested in reading John Dean’s take on the situation.
We already know for certain that Bush told a falsehood to Congress. The question is did he willingly do it?
What bothers me the most about this situation is that I honestly think that the President doesn’t give a shit about lying to Congress because he’s protected from impeachment by that same Republican-majority Congress.
I’m beginning to think that he doesn’t give a shit because the Bush Administration is painting itself into a corner by pointing out that the CIA approved the President’s speech–after expressing doubts about the Niger intelligence.
There’s only one tumbler left in the lock to Pandora’s box now. Here’s what we have so far:
[ul][li] The CIA questioned the intelligence about the Niger/uranium thing before the State of the Union address.[/li]
[li] [/li]
[li] The CIA approved the speech prior to its delivery. [/li]
[li] The President gave false information while performing his Constitutional duty to report the state of the nation to Congress.[/ul][/li]
That blank spot is the last tumbler in the lock, because IF it comes out that the President asked, told, ordered, requested, or begged the CIA to approve that item, and the CIA did it, then it’s Presidential manipulation of an intelligence agency, the highest crime for which a President has ever been accused.
Misusing the CIA was one of the key points in the articles of impeachment drafted against Richard Nixon, but in Nixon’s case it was a mere cover-up of a domestic crime, albeit an election-stealing crime. Manipulation of an intelligence agency in a matter of national security is far more serious. Lying to Congress–in a State of the Union address, no less–compounds the crime like Lawrence Taylor compounded Joe Theisman’s leg.
What’s even scarier about it is that thanks to the Republican Party, the precedents have been set so that impeachment is now a possibility for uttering a single-word falsehood about a sexual act before a mere grand jury.
That means that IF the President knowingly lied to Congress the President is also now unconcerned about being impeached, not because he is not guilty, but because he enjoys the political advantage of not having to answer for his high crime.
The first step in the impeachment process begins with Congressional inquiry. Unsurprisingly, Senator Warner does not “find the volume of evidence that he [Senator Levin] feels he sees that indicate or lay a basis that members of this administration took the intelligence, which was shared with the Congress, and began to interpret it, manipulate it or whatever to achieve a political purpose.”
So I’ll go out on a limb and give all of you one more big if:
IF the President did deliberately manipulate the CIA and lie to Congress, he’s still safe in the bosom of the GOP. It’s the rest of us who aren’t safe.
Guys, this is the reason I put the thread in GD. I knew this was going to happen. Calm down, take a deep breath.
IF the president lied. Assuming he lied. What can happen? What would need to happen? Is a president knowingly lying in the State of the Union a criminal offense? If it results in the death of Americans?
Sofa King, thank you for your analysis. Misusing the CIA is a crime. See, I didn’t know that. I’m not familiar with the constraints on the Presidency.
I’m gonna copy something from the previous link, the impeachment of Nixon.
Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
Hmm.
Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing …
If that’s a crime, then IF Bush lied, it’s an impeachable offense. What else can happen to him besides impeachment?
Still glad Saddam’s gone, and I still hope we stay in Iraq through at least the next president’s term. We owe them that much, to leave their country stronger than it was before.
Well, I messed up the quote tags… I have no idea how I did it that way, though.
what you postulate E-Sabbath is a pretty big IF. What you are actually asking is Did GW Bush knowingly use false information to start war for personal reasons.
If that were the case then he can pretty much kiss a second term goodbye and possibly face criminal charges after his term has ended.
However that facts as they stand right now cannot support such a preposterous claim. Everyone is implying that the only reason that we went to war in Iraq was because of WMD. That is blatantly false. It may be to some people but there were other reasons, good, valid and undisputed, to go in. Most of them start with Saddam’s name on it. WMDs are the swing vote for the people who dont care or chose to ignore all the issues involved. Keep in mind that a swing vote is a tie breaker. That means there had to have been a tie. There was sufficient reasons for and against going to war. Just because there were no WMDs found doesnt mean there was absolutely NO reason to go to war.
Sofa King:
Other than the cheap shot you took at me, your analysis makes sense. But, that’s a big if.
George Tenet has decided to take the bullet:
I’ll get to back to you later tonight when I’m done mowing my lawn, weedwhacking, changing the oil in my truck, changing the valve cover gaskets, putting in new plugs, wires, rotor, cap and settle down with a beer.
Simon X:
The story’s bee changing all day. Read page one of the thread.