Guest guest Posted June 23, 2005 Report Share Posted June 23, 2005 s Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:36:04 -0500 The 'I' word http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_\ i_word?mode=PF 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 > 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. > > Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.