MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing

[Argentum Vulpes]

Ok let's look at the Bush and his administration purposely lied to congress and the American public about the WMD's in Iraq, and the terrorist connection.

First with the WMD claim, Saddam used various toxic gases in his war with Kuwait and Iran. If he had and was willing to use them once he would have no problem having and using a second time. Plus there was the fact that Saddam would not allow UN inspectors the free reign to look where they wanted to. Plus the fact that there are several nations that granted were enemy's of the Saddam regime, would probably jump at the opportunity to get WMD's and are not a friend of the USA, and would also rejoice at the opportunity to make the US look bad on the international stage. If it looks like a dead fish, smells like a dead fish, then it is a dead fish and not a rose.

As for the terrorist connection, I never thought that was as an important point so i never really looked into it. However I am willing to believe the information provided by the Bush administration. I'm willing to do this because of my third point.

My third point is that the information that we had at the beginning of the war was accurate for several reasons. First as several of you point out you think that the Bush administration is full of a bunch of blundering lying dolts that can't figure out the difference between their heads and a hole in the ground. For any administration to pull off the kind of deceit and forgery that is being suggested you would need some very sharp, savvy, and cunning people. Hardly the picture some people want to associate with GWB, so please make up your minds. Second for that big of a conspiracy to of taken place you'd of needed many people (up wards of 100 by my guess) all willing to keep there collective mouth shut. I think this would of been possible 50 some odd years ago but not today in our Internet blog-o-sphere society. Conspiracy's like that only happen today on the silver and/or TV screen, and are always unraveled by the end of the movie or session.

 

[edward]

Congress gave the vote to goto war so if you want to impeach Bush on these terms we need to impeach several sitting members of congress, and arrest and try several members that are no longer in office.

Actually congrss gave Bush the vote to go to war only if diplomacy failed. Bush never tried diplomacy . Hans Blix peaded for more time for weapons inspections, but then Blix could not have found what was not there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html

What part of the Constitution did Bush try to erase and other things. As far as I can see and several other people have stated everything his administration has done has been legal.

Only diehard Bush supporters are stating this, especially the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.



Note that this video mentions the 2006 election as slowing down any investigations. The investigations have now begun and that is what this thread is all about.

Where as our 110th congress has been the "do nothing" congress that got in on a pack of empty promises.

That is entirely your opinion. As for my opinion the 109 was a do nothing rubber stamp congress. Well you they did debate the Terri Shiavo case.

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=272311

 

[Cyrus]

As for the Impeachment. Again, I don't care if its fair. My objective is to remove him from office because of his epic performance. He has absolutely ruined our country, our status and our prestigue around the world.

You want a real reason? When the country has the biggest natural disaster in US history and he takes days to respond to the incident, meanwhile American citizens are stranded in their homes while dead bodies float around them. That, if nothing else, should be reason to Impeach him.

Bush is 100% incompetent.


*NOTE- This is a response from a closed thread that didnt get merged to Argentum Vulpes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Parallel discussion linked to this thread from
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=166744

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

As for the Impeachment. Again, I don't care if its fair. My objective is to remove him from office because of his epic performance. He has absolutely ruined our country, our status and our prestigue around the world.

You want a real reason? When the country has the biggest natural disaster in US history and he takes days to respond to the incident, meanwhile American citizens are stranded in their homes while dead bodies float around them. That, if nothing else, should be reason to Impeach him.

Bush is 100% incompetent.


*NOTE- This is a response from a closed thread that didnt get merged to Argentum Vulpes.

Ok I will give you a bit of points for the Katrina disaster. The blending of FEMA into the office of Homeland security was a good idea on paper but we all see what the result was. However New Orleans had many problems that are not Bush's or FEMA's fault. What do people expect when they build a city that is below sea level, and not up to snuff of a category 5 storm. Also if it rains on my 4th of July parade I'm not going to blame the President for it. If an earthquake levels LA, or a tornado blows most of Oklahoma off of the map, or up state New York get burred under 20 ft. of snow I'm not blaming the president. The office doesn't have power over the weather.

As for the terrorist not being active anywhere other then Europe, the ME and the US. What about the Philippines, Darfur, or the disputed area of Kashmir? Also thanks for your response I will have to go back and check some of my cold war period history. It did give me something to think about and either confirm or debase in my own thoughts.*

*Note this was a response Cyrusabdollahi response also in a closed but not merged thread.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok I will give you a bit of points for the Katrina disaster. The blending of FEMA into the office of Homeland security was a good idea on paper but we all see what the result was. However New Orleans had many problems that are not Bush's or FEMA's fault. What do people expect when they build a city that is below sea level, and not up to snuff of a category 5 storm. Also if it rains on my 4th of July parade I'm not going to blame the President for it. If an earthquake levels LA, or a tornado blows most of Oklahoma off of the map, or up state New York get burred under 20 ft. of snow I'm not blaming the president. The office doesn't have power over the weather.

Ah, no. I am not blaming Bush on the weather. I am blaming him for his lack of leadership when he was needed most as a leader in a time of national crisis. I don't care if it was 100 feet below sea level, that's not the point. The point is that he did next to nothing. HE is the president of the United States, and if he wants to have a vacation during a national crisis he deserves impeachment.

I find that most Bush supporters blame everyone except Bush. You blame FEMA, you blame the person that leaked plames name out. Who is the boss of all these people? BUSH. Time and time again, one scandal after another happens under his watch. This leads to only one conclusion, he is either (1) not in charge and can't control his own people or (2) he is incompetent. Either way, he deserves to go. I don't care if it was everyones fault under him and never his fault. By default, he gets the blame because he's an ineffective leader. It does not have to be explicitly his fault. If you want to say that's not fare, well, life is not fair. You do a bad job, and as Donald Trump says, "You're Fired!

 

[Cyrus]

What about the Philippines, Darfur, or the disputed area of Kashmir?

(1) Kashmir is between India and Pakistan. A hot zone and land dispute. Goes right to what I said, "get off our land". Also, that has nothing to do with terrorists and everything to do with the bad blood between Muslims and Hindus in India. Thats why Pakistan broke away from India and formed its own country. Not related to terrorism, sorry.

(2) Also, Darfur (which I am I know somewhat about but not a whole lot), as far as I am aware, is NOT about terrorism. Its about genocide between two rival groups. So again, this is not a terrorism taking over the world issue. Thats a different story.

(3) As for the Philippines, I do know of some terrorist incidents that occured, but I am not aware as to the reasons behind those bombings. I don't recall them being because anyone wanted to convert the Philippines to an Islamic state.

 

[loseyourname]

Ah, no. I am not blaming Bush on the weather. I am blaming him for his lack of leadership when he was needed most as a leader in a time of national crisis. I don't care if it was 100 feet below sea level, that's not the point. The point is that he did next to nothing. HE is the president of the United States, and if he wants to have a vacation during a national crisis he deserves impeachment.

Bad and incompetent leadership isn't grounds for impeachment, and neither is presiding over an administration that breaks the law. The Constitution and precedent is pretty clear that he needs to personally break a law, and it needs to be provable that he did so. Getting rid of him because he's a bad president would be the equivalent of a no-confidence vote, which our system just doesn't provide for. This isn't like coaching a basketball team, where if you fail to meet the requirements of the position, you're gone at any team your employer feels fit to get rid of you. We get one chance, at the end of the first term, to get rid of the guy for incompetence, and we didn't do it. That's the only chance we get. After that, he needs to be proven guilty of a crime, not a moral crime, not a neglect of duty, but a breach of US law perpetrated by him.

 

[Art]

After that, he needs to be proven guilty of a crime, not a moral crime, not a neglect of duty, but a breach of US law perpetrated by him.

I didn't think a law needed to be broken? I thought 'abuse of power' and 'serious misconduct' are considered valid grounds for impeachment? In fact wasn't the first successful impeachment for a judge for his bizarre rulings; not in itself technically a crime.

Also president Andrew Johnston was impeached (though unsucessfully) for purely partisan motives.

 

[Manchot]

First with the WMD claim, Saddam used various toxic gases in his war with Kuwait and Iran. If he had and was willing to use them once he would have no problem having and using a second time. Plus there was the fact that Saddam would not allow UN inspectors the free reign to look where they wanted to. Plus the fact that there are several nations that granted were enemy's of the Saddam regime, would probably jump at the opportunity to get WMD's and are not a friend of the USA, and would also rejoice at the opportunity to make the US look bad on the international stage. If it looks like a dead fish, smells like a dead fish, then it is a dead fish and not a rose.

Yeah, he used mustard gas and sarin two decades ago. However, Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors themselves said that he had no WMDs, so why didn't we believe them? Instead, we chose to believe the rantings of an alcoholic informant who had been known to sell false information for a quick buck, even after an experienced diplomat traveled to the country accused of selling yellowcake and found that the alleged document was completely inconsistent with the truth, even filled with spelling errors. It's no question that the CIA knew all of this; the only question is whether Bush did. (And no, the Congress certainly didn't: they only had the evidence affirming a Saddam nuclear program, and none of the mountains of evidence against it.)

As for desiring a WMD program, so what? He country had been under sanctions for years, and couldn't have possibly gained even the raw materials.

My third point is that the information that we had at the beginning of the war was accurate for several reasons. First as several of you point out you think that the Bush administration is full of a bunch of blundering lying dolts that can't figure out the difference between their heads and a hole in the ground. For any administration to pull off the kind of deceit and forgery that is being suggested you would need some very sharp, savvy, and cunning people. Hardly the picture some people want to associate with GWB, so please make up your minds. Second for that big of a conspiracy to of taken place you'd of needed many people (up wards of 100 by my guess) all willing to keep there collective mouth shut. I think this would of been possible 50 some odd years ago but not today in our Internet blog-o-sphere society. Conspiracy's like that only happen today on the silver and/or TV screen, and are always unraveled by the end of the movie or session.

I think you overestimate the work required to go into Iraq under false pretenses. All of the facts are out there. The critical point here is that Bush and Cheney have plausible deniability. The only people who truly know whether they believed what they told the American people is them. As a result, any case against them in court would never hold up.

 

[Cyrus]

Bad and incompetent leadership isn't grounds for impeachment, and neither is presiding over an administration that breaks the law. The Constitution and precedent is pretty clear that he needs to personally break a law, and it needs to be provable that he did so. Getting rid of him because he's a bad president would be the equivalent of a no-confidence vote, which our system just doesn't provide for. This isn't like coaching a basketball team, where if you fail to meet the requirements of the position, you're gone at any team your employer feels fit to get rid of you. We get one chance, at the end of the first term, to get rid of the guy for incompetence, and we didn't do it. That's the only chance we get. After that, he needs to be proven guilty of a crime, not a moral crime, not a neglect of duty, but a breach of US law perpetrated by him.

No, I don't think that's entirely true. You can set a presidence by impeaching him on incompetance as a warning to future presidents that fail to do their job. Where does it say he has to break a law? He can break a law, or he can have a high misdemeanor. A high misdemeanor would be subject to interpretation by the congress.

I see no reason why we should not impeach him.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_misdemeanor

The standard for impeachment among the judiciary is much broader. Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior," implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior. The standard for impeachment of members of the legislature is/would be the same as the Executive standard, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment


Nothing would make my day more than to see Bush impeached. I don't care if he has one day left, its the symbolism that the entire country gets justice for this guys stupidity. If clinton had a trial for a blow job, Bush should have had 10 impeachments by now for his actions.

 

[BobG]

I didn't think a law needed to be broken? I thought 'abuse of power' and 'serious misconduct' are considered valid grounds for impeachment? In fact wasn't the first successful impeachment for a judge for his bizarre rulings; not in itself technically a crime.

Also president Andrew Johnston was impeached (though unsucessfully) for purely partisan motives.

Johnson was accused of illegally replacing his Secretary of War. Congress was using the logic that a cabinet member that requires Senate confirmation to be hired also requires Senate approval to be fired.

That's a huge stretch and the impeachment was definitely motivated by politics rather than an actual crime. Regardless, one more vote for guilty during the impeachment would have forced Johnson out of office. It's not something Johnson could have appealed to Supreme Court.

In fact, having the Supreme Court decide a President's acts were illegal does nothing aside from making it public record that the President has violated his authority under the Constitution. Andrew Jackson just ignored Supreme Court rulings he didn't like. When the Supreme Court ruled Georgia couldn't impose its laws on Cherokee lands, Jackson replied, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"

Having a President ignore the Supreme Court probably makes it a lot easier for Congress to impeach a President without alienating the folks that vote for Congress. In fact, it could raise public outcry enough that Congress would be silly not to impeach.

Still, Congress is pretty much the only "decider" of whether the President has committed a crime or not. An impeachable offense is whatever they say an impeachable offense is.

 

[russ_watters]

You can set a presidence by impeaching him on incompetance as a warning to future presidents that fail to do their job.

Is that a precedent you really want to set? You really want a "no confidence" vote? That's a huge change in the power structure of the government.

If clinton had a trial for a blow job, Bush should have had 10 impeachments by now for his actions.

Clinton's trial was for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both, crimes. I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

 

[Art]

I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

How about for illegal wire taps and obstruction of justice, his latest being obstructing the congressional hearing into the sacking of the DA's

 

[turbo]

Clinton's trial was for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both, crimes. I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

Bush lied about intelligence on Iraq to start a war. He has the blood of 100's of thousands of people on his hands, and has damaged (irreparably, at least in the short-term) our standing in the world. His minions outed a CIA NOC (the most expensive, extensive, and complicated cover that they can manufacture, with the most personal risk for the operative) who was tasked with uncovering and preventing transactions in WMDs. They did this when her husband reported that there was no evidence to support their fabricated story that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. Bush et al have unilaterally withdrawn the US from participation in the Geneva conventions without Congressional approval, so that they can kidnap people with unpopular political views, torture them, and hold them indefinitely without charges and no access to our legal system. There are many more transgressions. These are sufficient. We have war criminals at the highest levels of our government, and they are willing to sacrifice our soldiers in the pursuit of their war for profit. When Bush's term ends, there will be pardons all around and all the players will retreat into "private" life to collect their blood-money from the corporations that profit from this war. Our country was founded on higher principles and we should not tolerate this perversion of human rights perpetrated by the present administration.

 

[Futobingoro]

They did this when her husband reported that there was no evidence to support their fabricated story that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger.

George Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (I addded the emphasis on "sought")

Joe Wilson: An Iraqi delegation visited Niger in 1999 interested in "expanding commercial relations," which prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki interpreted as an interest in purchasing uranium. However, no transaction ever took place due to sanctions on Iraq.

Bush never claimed that a transaction had taken place, only that Iraq had sought uranium. Wilson's discovery of the 1999 meeting actually reinforced Bush's 16 words. Wilson then famously went public later and debunked a claim that Bush had never made.

 

[Art]

George Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (I addded the emphasis on "sought")

Joe Wilson: An Iraqi delegation visited Niger in 1999 interested in "expanding commercial relations," which prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki interpreted as an interest in purchasing uranium. However, no transaction ever took place due to sanctions on Iraq.

Bush never claimed that a transaction had taken place, only that Iraq had sought uranium. Wilson's discovery of the 1999 meeting actually reinforced Bush's 16 words. Wilson then famously went public later and debunked a claim that Bush had never made.

lol Yes which followed on from this

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet and Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited an attempted yellowcake purchase from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that time, the UK government also publicly reported an attempted purchase from an unnamed African country. In December, the State Department issued a fact sheet listing the alleged Niger yellowcake affair in a report entitled "Illustrative Examples of Omissions From the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council."[

These statements from the Bush admin and their effect on the public's thinking have to be taken collectively. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain the intention was to convince the public Iraq had an active nuclear program.

Even the Whitehouse later conceded the comments by Bush in the State of the Union speech should never have been included

In his January 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush repeated the allegation, citing British intelligence sources. The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated "these 16 words should never have been included" (referring to Bush's State of the Union address), attributing the error to the CIA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery#Oblique_reference_in_Bush_speech

Wilson's contribution was to reveal that not only was the evidence inconclusive as stated in the Whitehouse's apology but had actually been proven to be false prior to the State of the Union speech!

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently the forged documents were passed through Italian intelligence through Berlusconi to the US and British governments. The US then contacted the British who apparently confirmed they had similar evidence to the US. Neither bothered to check out the source of the intelligence independently, and of course, Bush we never interested in the truth anyway - that would be too inconvenient.

Bush surrounded himself with dishonest people, who had a political agenda to go to war. They conspired to make war under false pretenses. That seems like a high crime - and one can add kidnapping and murder.

 

[Cyrus]

Is that a precedent you really want to set? You really want a "no confidence" vote? That's a huge change in the power structure of the government. Clinton's trial was for perjury and obstruction of justice. Both, crimes. I'll even agree that that was thin, but c'mon, you guys want to remove Bush for less than criminal actions. You want to remove him simply because you don't like him. Sorry, but that ain't enough.

Yep, I sure do. I have no confidence in him anymore, and I want him gone. Its as simple as that. Future presidents can then keep that in the back of their minds if they want to ignore everyone else and do what they want to do. If they keep it up, they too will be kicked out of office.

 

[turbo]

George Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (I addded the emphasis on "sought")

Joe Wilson: An Iraqi delegation visited Niger in 1999 interested in "expanding commercial relations," which prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki interpreted as an interest in purchasing uranium. However, no transaction ever took place due to sanctions on Iraq.

Bush never claimed that a transaction had taken place, only that Iraq had sought uranium. Wilson's discovery of the 1999 meeting actually reinforced Bush's 16 words. Wilson then famously went public later and debunked a claim that Bush had never made.

Delegations wishing to "expand commercial relations" travel from country to country daily all over the world and most countries have many, many such delegations acting in their interests. To claim that a single delegation from Iraq to Niger had an overriding goal to purchase Uranium ore is laughable on the face of it and a gross distortion of the part of the Bush administration. Iraq has huge oil reserves, and it sent delegations to countries all around the world trying to establish commercial relations aimed at turning those resources into money. The fact that Niger has commercially-extractable Uranium deposits and that Iraq wanted to sell them oil was turned into a very transparent lie by the Bush administration. There is no evidence (much less proof) that Iraq wanted yellow-cake. Iraq wanted dollars, which were squeezed off by the UN sanctions. Catch a clue!

 

[edward]

Apparently the forged documents were passed through Italian intelligence through Berlusconi to the US and British governments. The US then contacted the British who apparently confirmed they had similar evidence to the US. Neither bothered to check out the source of the intelligence independently, and of course, Bush we never interested in the truth anyway - that would be too inconvenient.

Bush surrounded himself with dishonest people, who had a political agenda to go to war. They conspired to make war under false pretenses. That seems like a high crime - and one can add kidnapping and murder.

Ten months had passed before the IAEA saw the document. They quickly realized that the document was a forgery because it was:

signed by a Nigerian minister who had been out of office for 10 years.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold07152003.html

 

[Futobingoro]

Apparently the forged documents were passed through Italian intelligence through Berlusconi to the US and British governments. The US then contacted the British who apparently confirmed they had similar evidence to the US. Neither bothered to check out the source of the intelligence independently, and of course, Bush we never interested in the truth anyway - that would be too inconvenient.

Bush's "16 words" were not based upon the forgeries. They were based off of intelligence gathered from Wissam al-Zahawie's February 1999 departure from Italy to Niger. Because Zahawie was Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican, Italian intelligence was among the first to make note of the travel plans. The Italians alerted the French, who have better contacts in Niger. The French passed word of the visit to the British, who in turn relayed it to Washington. The CIA sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to verify and ascertain the nature of Zahawie's visit. Wilson interviewed Ibrahim Hassane Mayaki, prime minister of Niger at the time of Zahawie's arrival, who confirmed the visit and said that the Iraqi delegation was interested in "expanding commercial relations." It was Mayaki who interpreted this as an interest in uranium. Uranium talks, however, did not move forward from there, as both the UN and the French would not allow a transaction to take place even if an agreement were reached.

This was the intelligence behind Bush's "16 words." It was backed by Italian, French, British and US intelligence (including Joseph Wilson's findings).

The forged documents are a different subject entirely, as they bear the signature and diplomatic seal of Wissam al-Zahawie on papers closing a uranium deal with Niger. As such, they go far beyond the claims of Bush and the intelligence agencies noted above, who claimed only that a delegation had sought uranium from Niger, not that a transaction had taken place.

 

[Astronuc]

George Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (I added the emphasis on "sought")

Joe Wilson: An Iraqi delegation visited Niger in 1999 interested in "expanding commercial relations," which prime minister Ibrahim Assane Mayaki interpreted as an interest in purchasing uranium. However, no transaction ever took place due to sanctions on Iraq.

Bush never claimed that a transaction had taken place, only that Iraq had sought uranium. Wilson's discovery of the 1999 meeting actually reinforced Bush's 16 words. Wilson then famously went public later and debunked a claim that Bush had never made.

Wasn't Wilson disputing the fact that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Iraq was seeking uranium? And what flimsy evidence there was, was found to be faulty. It seems a key statement here is "Ibrahim Assane Mayaki interpreted as an interest in purchasing uranium", which is simply conjecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review

The article does mention that 3/4's of Niger export is uranium [probably yellow cake], however it also states that this is irrelevant since France (ostensibly Cogema) controls the mines (mining industry), and there are definitely proliferation controls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review#Criticism_of_Niger_conclusions

 

[BobG]

Bush's "16 words" were not based upon the forgeries. They were based off of intelligence gathered from Wissam al-Zahawie's February 1999 departure from Italy to Niger. Because Zahawie was Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican, Italian intelligence was among the first to make note of the travel plans. The Italians alerted the French, who have better contacts in Niger. The French passed word of the visit to the British, who in turn relayed it to Washington. The CIA sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to verify and ascertain the nature of Zahawie's visit. Wilson interviewed Ibrahim Hassane Mayaki, prime minister of Niger at the time of Zahawie's arrival, who confirmed the visit and said that the Iraqi delegation was interested in "expanding commercial relations." It was Mayaki who interpreted this as an interest in uranium. Uranium talks, however, did not move forward from there, as both the UN and the French would not allow a transaction to take place even if an agreement were reached.

This was the intelligence behind Bush's "16 words." It was backed by Italian, French, British and US intelligence (including Joseph Wilson's findings).

The forged documents are a different subject entirely, as they bear the signature and diplomatic seal of Wissam al-Zahawie on papers closing a uranium deal with Niger. As such, they go far beyond the claims of Bush and the intelligence agencies noted above, who claimed only that a delegation had sought uranium from Niger, not that a transaction had taken place.

Aside from the forged documents, the claim was removed from Bush's October speech at the request of the CIA. This was the speech Bush made in the middle of Congress's debate over the resolution to authorize war and he was highly motivated to put as much public pressure on Congress as possible.

The State of the Union address specifically cited British Intelligence as the source because US intelligence agencies didn't want to stand behind the claim.

The statement ("The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") was technically accurate, but having to resort to foreign intelligence agencies over your own country's intelligence agencies is cherry picking to the max.

 

[Astronuc]

The statement ("The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.") was technically accurate, but having to resort to foreign intelligence agencies over your own country's intelligence agencies is cherry picking to the max.

But knowing that the CIA did not support the statement, and using it anyway, is deceptive and dishonest in the least. One would therefore conclude that Bush wanted to go to war and the administration fabricated a case to go to war.

Where were the Senate and House intelligence committees? Well they were controlled by conservative Republicans, who had little motivation to challenge the president.

 

[Futobingoro]

Well, it appears that Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger knowing only about the documents that would later be shown to be forgeries:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's.

Source

Those definitely fit the description of the forged documents.

Wilson did not know, however, that the CIA was also interested in the separate subject of the 1999 Iraqi delegation to Niger. In Niger, Wilson collected information virtually eliminating the possibility of a uranium transaction. He therefore returned to the US thinking that he had debunked the only significant intelligence on Niger, writing that the reports were "unequivocally wrong" and that the documents had been forged. The CIA, however, simultaneously viewed Wilson's report as a reinforcement of the existence of the 1999 delegation. Had Wilson known about the CIA's interest in the 1999 delegation, he likely would have still doubted the forgeries, but he would have recognized the validity of the claim that Iraq was "seeking" uranium in Niger.

Fast forward to the 2003 State of the Union, where Bush spoke the "16 words," claiming that British intelligence had learned that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Wilson, in his op-ed:

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

It is my opinion, which I feel is well-founded, that Wilson thought that Bush was referring to the forged documents, and that Wilson understandably went public to correct this "wrong."

It is debatable whether Iraq's seeking of uranium was relevant enough to include in the speech, especially because no negotiations ever moved forward. The fact remains, however, that Bush was not lying.

And regarding the conjecture that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" as an interest in uranium, I think that it is probably credible, as Mayaki would have the diplomatic background and experience as prime minister to make that interpretation. Additionally, the Butler review noted that uranium constitutes "almost three-quarters of Niger's exports." Depending on the rainfall in a given year, the balance is comprised of livestock, cowpeas, onions and cotton (source). There are also undeveloped mineral deposits.

 

[edward]

Futobingoro

You contend that you think you know what Wilson was thinking about! Give me a break.

The administration had been told by sources other than Wilson that there was no yellow cake involvement with Niger. Bush lied or was intentionally misinformed by his advisers. There is no gray area here.

Regardless the statements made by Bush did convince millions of Americans that there was a "Grave and Gathering Danger".

 

[Astronuc]

Around the time that the president was beginning to make a case for war, something for which had been in planning for about 3 years, Rice made the following statement, which made headlines around the world.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
It was all about WMD nuclear, or chem, or bio.

Meanwhile, Cheney's office was leaking stories to the media, e.g. Judith Miller at the NYTimes, and then later, Cheney would let people like Tim Russert bring it up so that it would look like Cheney was confirming someone else's information. Now that is deliberately deceptive.

The inspectors there were finding nothing. And later, leading up to the war, Scott Ritter and others were saying that there was nothing to find. Then David Kay and various military officers were saying they couldn't find anything because there was nothing to find, which supported what was being said before the war.

If the president had been honest, he would have had to concede that he and other lack no certain or verifiable data (not that they were interested), but the he felt strongly that the US needed to remove Saddam Hussein.

But then the Bush admin totally blew it when they put political hacks and inexperience and unqualified people to lead the recovery. Cheney was undermining the political side, and Rumsfeld was undermining the military.

And then Bush had the gall to tell the US public that he (and his administration) were doing all they could do for the troops, when in fact, the troops did not have proper body armour or armoured Humvies - for two more years even!

http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=49

The decisions, policies and intelligence behind the Iraq War
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/7132720.htm

Bill Moyers presented "Buying the War" on PBS this evening. He outlines how the White House fabricated the case for war, how Congress (controlled by Republicans) failed to due its duty and check the president, and how the media assisted the White House (particularly Dick Cheney) in deceiving the public. One news organization, Knight Ridder was reporting that the case for war was faulty. Apparently few in the main stream were paying attention.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/knight_ridder/
Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) reporters Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, who between them have over 40 years experience reporting on foreign affairs and national security.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/biosandterms.html

 

[mormonator_rm]

If all of the accusations against Bush from the Left are indeed true, then he should not only be impeached, but also tried for war crimes afterward; I have full confidence that an international war crimes tribunal will not only find him guilty on all counts, but will sentence him to a long imprisonment (only since the death sentence does not seem to be popular among other nations...). How about that idea?

 

[Futobingoro]

You contend that you think you know what Wilson was thinking about! Give me a break.

The administration had been told by sources other than Wilson that there was no yellow cake involvement with Niger. Bush lied or was intentionally misinformed by his advisers. There is no gray area here.

As is noted by the Butler Review, http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html and even Joseph Wilson himself, the Iraqi delegation's 1999 visit is a fact, and the purpose of that visit is almost a fact (the Butler Review used indirect, yet sound, analysis to determine the likely meaning of "expanding commercial relations").

Simply put, Wilson misinterpreted Bush's 16 words, writing of his Niger trip in his op-ed: "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." Wilson disproved a claim that Bush had never made.

And as I said before, it is debatable whether the Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger was relevant enough to mention in the State of the Union, due to the fact that nothing ever came of the encounter, but George Bush was not lying when he said that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.

 

[edward]

Futobingoro

Man I am really amazed that you want to continue defending Bush on the Sixteen words. The 1999 incident had been disproved by the time Bush made the statement. BTW Wilson was in Niger in 1999. Think about it, if the amounts claimed were true, France would have had to allow Iraq to take one third of the yellow cake that they (France) were buying from Niger. Not likely.

For that matter at this point it doesn't even matter what Wilson thought or wrote either. Wilson only proclaimed that there was no deal for Iraq to buy yellow cake from Niger at the time he was there. This merely substantiated that the Italian documents which were declared to be forgeries by the IAEA, were bogus.

Monday 17 April 2006

Sixteen days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.

The revelation of the warning from the closely guarded State Department memo is the first piece of hard evidence and the strongest to date that the Bush administration manipulated and ignored intelligence information in their zeal to win public support for invading Iraq.

The memo says: "On January 12, 2003," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries."

Moreover, the memo says that the State Department's doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims may have been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier.

Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 - one week after Bush's State of the Union address - to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/59/19157

The entire memo.

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/fordmemo.pdf

 

[Futobingoro]

The 1999 Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger is fact and exists separately from the forgeries.

Joseph Wilson proved that the documents showing a uranium sale were forgeries.

Show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

 

[Art]

The 1999 Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger is fact and exists separately from the forgeries.

Joseph Wilson proved that the documents showing a uranium sale were forgeries.

Show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

Futo you are probably the last person on the planet who seems to believe Bush did not fabricate and falsely misrepresent evidence to justify making war on Iraq.
So be it you are entitled to hold your mistaken opinion based on your reading of Wilson's mind. Personally I will not be wasting any more time on the subject.

 

[Futobingoro]

Futo you are probably the last person on the planet who seems to believe Bush did not fabricate and falsely misrepresent evidence to justify making war on Iraq.

So expressing doubts about a common yellowcake narrative makes me somebody who thinks all of Bush's Iraq WMD claims were valid? If I were a cynic I would say that you are trying to label me so you can distance yourself from the subject.

My challenge remains: show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

 

[turbo]

As is noted by the Butler Review, http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html and even Joseph Wilson himself, the Iraqi delegation's 1999 visit is a fact, and the purpose of that visit is almost a fact (the Butler Review used indirect, yet sound, analysis to determine the likely meaning of "expanding commercial relations").

This is not at all the case. At the time of the visit, Iraq was under UN sanctions and was desperately in need of cash. It takes energy to refine uranium, and Iraq had great reserves of portable energy (oil) that could feed the generating plants powering Niger's uranium industry. In return, Niger could help relieve Iraq's cash-flow problem. Iraq was getting some help from France and Russia, but under the UN sanctions, the oil revenues had to be earmarked for humanitarian purposes. If Iraq could sell oil to a country that was not cooperative with the sanctions, they would have some cash-flow free of restrictions.

If Bush, Blair, and their lap-dogs want to make more of that trip, they will have to supply some sort of documentation to support it. Despite the fact that they have two of the world's best intelligence communities at their disposal, they have produced not a shred of such evidence and in fact the CIA had discredited the yellowcake angle months before Bush's speech. Since the CIA wouldn't back him up in his lie, he said that British intelligence had "discovered" the yellowcake link, as if the US has to rely on foreign intelligence agencies to prevent the spread of WMD technology and materials. That, by the way, was the job of Valerie Plame, working in a very dangerous NOC CIA cover. Yes, when Joe Wilson told the public that the CIA and the administration had known months before that the yellowcake connection was bogus, the Bushies outed his wife and thus destroyed the career of one of our NOC operatives who was working actively to prevent the spread of WMDs. By doing so, they also put at risk other NOCs and their foreign sources who might have been identified by their associations with Plame. Operatives at the CIA are VERY unhappy with the Bush administration's cavalier attitude with their lives and careers.

My challenge remains: show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

You are moving the goalposts. Bush claimed that Iraq had attempted to procure yellowcake from Niger. He did not say that Iraq had bought the yellowcake or that they possessed it, just that they had attempted to buy it. And he had known that even that statement was a lie for months before he made it, which is why he referred to a long-discredited statement from British intelligence instead of real, current, CIA intelligence.