News MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing

  • Thread starter Thread starter edward
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Poll
Click For Summary
The MSNBC poll indicates that 87% of respondents support impeaching President Bush, raising concerns about the poll's integrity and voter demographics. While some argue impeachment could serve as a necessary check on presidential power, others believe it would be detrimental to the country, especially given the limited time left in Bush's presidency. Critics highlight Bush's actions post-9/11, particularly the Iraq War, as justifications for impeachment, asserting he has violated constitutional principles. The discussion also touches on the challenges of proving impeachable offenses, as many actions taken by the administration were legally sanctioned. Ultimately, the debate reflects deep divisions over Bush's presidency and the implications of impeachment for American democracy.
  • #31
Astronuc said:
Faced with the possibility of impeachment, Nixon resigned. If had had stayed in office, he would likely have been impeached.

I think Nixon shows us that given a smoking gun, things can happen very quickly. In his case it wasn't even necessary to go through the impeachment or trial. And Bush is far worse than Nixon.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
What gets me the most is how much is right up front

...Bush has indicated that he does not intend to enforce laws or parts of laws or whatever he thinks interferes with his powers as president. In effect, he's vetoing Congress without vetoing," Greco said.

In doing so, Greco said, Bush is denying Congress its authority to enact laws and exercise oversight of the executive branch, "because there's no veto to override."

I asked Greco for his response to the contention of some Bush supporters that the signing statements merely comment on the laws being enacted and are not a vow to ignore them at will. I asked: Are the signing statements more of a theoretical than actual threat to the separation of powers?

"The proof is what he's doing," Greco replied. He cited Bush's signing statement to the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Defense Department appropriations bill, which prohibits the torture of prisoners. Bush added the caveat that as commander in chief he can waive the torture ban if he thinks harsh interrogation techniques are needed to prevent terrorist attacks. [continued]
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1150967122583

Time and time again Bush has acted as if above the law. Only now can we actually investigate all that has occurred over the last six years. But they must act quickly, that's for sure. I also now believe that the power of the Presidency must be significantly curtailed. It seems that given the right conditions, one can nearly rise to the level of a dictator.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
edward said:
Bush's approval rating has been high at times. He screwed that up by what he has done. Invading Iraq based on lies and trying to run the constitution through Gonzo's paper shredder, among other things, have finally caught up with him.

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.

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.

Where as our 110th congress has been the "do nothing" congress that got in on a pack of empty promises. With there endless investigations, non binding garbage, armchair quarterbacking, trying to take powers that are not theres, stabbing our troops in the back, ,and appeasement to a very dangerous enemy that wants to put the entire world back to the late 13th century. There doing all of this for what? So they can look good in the 2008 presidential election. This political garbage is what is killing this country, not G.W.B.
 
  • #34
Twilight zone post. Sure all politicians are opportunists, its in their blood. Would they have collectively decided invasion was a good thing w/o pressure?
I doubt it. The problm in this country is appearing weak. There was lots of rage going about, and GWB figured out how to harness it, as have many past presidents. He lied about a connection to Iraq and sucked the media into the drumbeat for war for ulterior motives, and has repeatedly desecrated the constitution and checks/balances to say nothing of a thumb in the nose for any other decision vs his own, whether by treaty, his own joint chiefs, the american public, various world bodies... Reminds me of Cho, a man who has never been able to succeed and has a bunch of rage.
 
  • #35
Also, Congress only knew what they were told.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
Argentum Vulpes said:
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


the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html



Argentum Vulpies said:
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.

Argentum Vulpes said:
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.:rolleyes:

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=272311
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
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.
 
  • #40
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #41
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #44
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
loseyourname said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Art said:
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.
 
  • #48
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
russ_watters said:
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
 
  • #50
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #51
turbo-1 said:
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.
 
  • #52
Futobingoro said:
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. :rolleyes: 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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
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.
 
  • #54
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #55
Futobingoro said:
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!
 
  • #56
Astronuc said:
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.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold07152003.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Astronuc said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Futobingoro said:
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
 
  • #59
Futobingoro said:
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.
 
  • #60
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
11K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
14K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K