The 'I' word By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese

[Guest guest]

G

Tue, 31 May 2005 20:42:03 -0700 (PDT)

The 'I' word By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese

 

 

 

RALPH NADER AND KEVIN ZEESE

The 'I' word By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese

May 31, 2005

 

THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of

mainstream political discourse.

 

Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister

Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing " the

intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify

the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes --

evidence was thin and needed fixing.

 

President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual

relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and

costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in

violation of domestic and international law certainly merits

introduction of an impeachment resolution.

 

Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether

intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The

letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new

questions regarding the legal justifications for the war. " Those

minutes describe the case for war as ''thin " and Saddam as

''nonthreatening to his neighbors, " and ''Britain and America had to

create conditions to justify a war. " Finally, military action was

''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being

fixed around the policy. "

 

 

 

Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any

imminent threat to the United States:

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported

in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its

program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any

indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for

production of amounts of weapon-usable material. " A 2003 update by the

IAEA reached the same conclusions.

 

The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any

direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of

mass destruction programs. "

 

Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not

developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass

destruction. "

 

The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims

of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called

top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim

as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.

 

Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's

National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not

carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the

president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven.

Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing

or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical

agent production facilities.

 

When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might " and ''could. " The

case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the

president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002:

''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons

of mass destruction. "

 

The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected

do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently

pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire

nuclear weapons. "

 

The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We

have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has

directed attacks against US territory. "

 

The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's

National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even

the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public

assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that

Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45

minutes after the order is given. " And, just before the invasion,

President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait

for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form

of a mushroom cloud. "

 

The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central

question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating

and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and

alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and

deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed

to the United States and its neighbors? "

 

If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed

''high crimes and misdemeanors. " It is time for Congress to

investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of

the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US

safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of

Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of

fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I " word.

 

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Kevin Zeese is director of

DemocracyRising.US.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_\

i_word?mode=PF