Kucinich impeach bill charges Bush 'fabricated threats' of WMD; Pelosi hints at possible hearing

got the address and phone number?

I think Congress may be getting so much flack about FISA that perhaps this is a way to divert attention.

Thanks.

Mail to Congress can be addressed to the US Capitol, Washington D.C., though adding the first initial of the building the office is in, like Rayburn plus HOB for RHOB on the House side and SOB fittingly for Senate will get it there faster. The switchboard is 202-224-3121 and they can locate the MoC by zip code for folks who aren't sure which gems they got the last go round!

Here's a Directory link and up in the corner is a search by zip code too, now call, speak up. :~)

jade-log: I hate to introduce this corollary but I think it should be considered. The House and the Senate and no less than Colin Powell trusted the executive branch and voted to give George Bush the power to act immediately in the case of aggression. It was at this point that Hillary along with many other Senators voted infamously to grant Bush these powers. Mr. Obama was not a Senator at the time, therefore his vote is moot.

I'm completely confused. His vote on what? How could it be moot in any case?

"The American public is smarter than Pelosi and Reid might believe."

No they're not!

Viet Nam was too complex to blame on one person. The war was a continuation of a French colonial war against the communists. The French withdrew and we entered under cover and eventually began adding grounds troops. I believe we had agents in the field during the JFK administration. LBJ should be impeached posthumously but not for Viet Nam. He made a lot of shady land deals in Texas. What say we never vote in a Texan anytime soon?

Couldn't we at least rescind Reagan's sainthood? There are precedents: Henry VIII abolished the cult of St. Thomas a Becket after his rift with the Catholic Church. St. Thomas had died centuries earlier, but his claim to sainthood was standing up for the Pope against a king who had him killed for doing it, and suddenly Henry discovered that it was very awkward to have all these pilgrims going to his shrine "the holy blissful martyr for to seeke."

A new Canterbury Tales.

I agree anyone misleading us about a war can be impeached. I vote we go after LBJ, posthumously. He killed 58,000 Americans needlessly, lied about the war, and the Democratic Leadership failed to impeach him. He used a draft no less.

Sure George no difference at all between a current president and one that died 40 years ago. It's all good right? At least LBJ had the good graces not to run for a second term unlike the current moron.

George Taylor: I agree anyone misleading us about a war can be impeached. I vote we go after LBJ, posthumously.

No need to impeach somebody dead. He can't do any more harm. George Bush on the other hand, can.

I do not think the American people will stomach another impeachment proceeding.

The American people are the ones screaming for it. It's Congress that doesn't have the stomach for it.

The Congress can't be too upset with Bush. Even with his dismal poll numbers, theirs are even lower

Congress isn't upset with Bush about his poll numbers.

There is a reason the Dems haven't been given the votes by the public to override a veto.

Since when does the public give the Dems, or anybody, the votes to override a veto?

I think he meant the people didn't elect a 2/3 majority into Congress. Boy, talk about bloodless revolution...

Can we impeach Bill again for Kosovo then?

And shouldn't he be listed as co-consipiritor for Iraq, he was the one that made it the law to support regeime change in Iraq AND threw missles into Iraq near the end of his term because of the WMDs that he told everyone were there...

Oh wait... he's a democrat, isn't he? Well, then it's ok.

That's right Rhinehold I forgot the Republican basic rule of debate. When you are talking about what Bush has done you blame everything on Clinton.

Can we impeach Bill again for Kosovo then?

Go for it!

Virtually no bloodshed?

Oh yeah, he saved American lives by carpetbombing civilians... I forgot.

Yeah, that's a so much better solution...

Say, why do we STILL have troops in Kosovo again?

So, what you are saying is that war is ok as long as we have fewer than a thousand casualties? What does 'relatively' mean to you?

And, as I am not a Republican, it kind of makes it hard to use the tired 'listen to Rush' crap. Maybe you should look up the talking points when discussing with a Libertarian, that might help you not look as silly.

Rhinehold: And, as I am not a Republican, it kind of makes it hard to use the tired 'listen to Rush' crap.

You think no Democrats listen to that fool?

This is an excellent example of why we all need to rely a lot less on party. It's just not enough to draw accurate conclusions any more.

Bush could use his power as president to grant amnesty to a host of people under investigation.

Based on the track record his administration, you can change the word "could" in that sentence to "will".

Well, couldn't he just say that there is evidence that there was a threat and it is protected by executive privilege?

(he he he)

but of course, he is our King, he has a divine right to do what he wishes.

nearing if i overthrow king george will you be my queen ;)

nearing if i overthrow king george will you be my queen ;)

of course!

Kucinich, who would have thought that eccentric Ohioan(?) would be the one to call out the dogs.
Cheney has to go too. That would make Pelosi the first woman President. wow!

Who does the presidency pass to if she is done?

President pro tempore of the Senate1 Robert Byrd

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

My distinguished colleagues here in the Senate, (turns the page) I seem to have been summoned to the (turn the page) White House, pursuant to the impeach (turn the page) ment of Nancy Pelosi. I bid you all adieu, and may (turn the page) the funding of West Virginia come to you all!

hard too,...Byrd is the oldest member of them all, right? If he can remember well he could remember better times.

Whenever Byrd speaks, the Senate gets a history lesson. It's ridiculous how much that man has covered. Not to mention his gigantic print on his papers that he reads...

That's my point, you impeach and what, get Cheney if he has one day alone he will attack Iran.

They all should be tried in the international court. Bush didn't support it's creation. It would be deeply ironic to have Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al tried in a multinational court.

Kucinich is THE BEST! He is the only person I trust in our country because he is "by the people and for the people" and not for Mammon like the rest of them.

Wow, you got a position-based response? I e-mailed my Senators about FISA and one never even bothered with a "we got this" message, and one said "thanks, I'll read it later and get back to you." On two separate occasions to the same e-mail.

Wow. Good job Frank.

That is a good letter Frank….thanks for sharing it. The responses I get are similar to SH's, if indeed I get a response. Feinsteins' reason to not do anything sounds like a familiar tune.

At this time, however, I believe that impeachment proceedings against President Bush will only divide the country even further

Seems I heard this song prior to the elections in 04 , 06 and now 08. Just when the hell is a good time to get accountability? There are too many politicians who throw out their constitutional responsibilities as soon as they are in office and think party, party, party and power, power power. Elections supersede responsibilities to the country and to the people.

Good Frank,

That letter from DIFI is almost verbatim the one I got from my congressman Mike Thompson Dem of CA.

The go get'em part of me says, "Let's go! Let's do this!"

The old silver-back part of me says "Crap this ain't gonna happen"

So Feinstein expresses deep concern about Bush's actions, but wants to simply let it slide because some Americans might disagree. That's crap. If there's sufficient evidence that Bush abused the powers of his position and misled Congress and the American public, that needs to be immediately addressed by appropriate legal means as a matter of course. That it might be unpopular with some people and that he's nearing the end of his final term isn't the point. Such abuse of presidential power isn't something we should shrug off.

Agreed. But I don't think those in congresss have stomach for it, sadly.

I think we should all write our Congresspeople about impeachment, and when they blow it off, send back the relevant part of #11.5:

That's crap!!!!!!

If there's sufficient evidence that Bush abused the powers of his position and misled Congress and the American public, that needs to be immediately addressed by appropriate legal means as a matter of course. That it might be unpopular with some people and that he's nearing the end of his final term isn't the point. Such abuse of presidential power isn't something we should shrug off.

I may or may not have edited the bold block a tiny bit.

The next time they ask me for a donation I think I will send them a rewritten version of this letter suggesting that I cannot make a donation because "I believe that we need to focus on constructive and cooperative steps that would lead us in the right direction. It is my hope that the next Presidential Administration's actions will more accurately reflect the will of the people. "

Agreed. But I don't think those in congresss have stomach for it, sadly.

Bang-up job we're doing in the voting booth.

At this time, however, I believe that impeachment proceedings against President Bush will only divide the country even further, frustrating our hopes for a meaningful change in direction, while having little chance of success.

You know, she's right. They should have started this process years ago. He's a lame duck. If he goes out then CHENEY, mister shot-his-friend-in-the-face Dick Cheney will be president. Five minutes alone with the big red button and Iran will become a nuclear wasteland.

Or to give blanket pardons to everyone, including himself, on the way out the door and then shred all the records.

you know eric for a non-american you sure get it, more so than most americans i know

its too damn bad dennis isnt the one running for president i would register and vote for him

Or to give blanket pardons to everyone, including himself, on the way out the door and then shred all the records.

Could a President really pardon himself if he wasn't being charged with anything yet? He certainly can't for impeachment proceedings.

I think he was talking about Erik, Eric, but I think you really get it too. :^)

i think just about everyone on this seed would like to read my latest seed

just click on my name pretty sure you can find it there

youll like it

Trex,

You means pardons like Clinton gave? Puerto Rican Terrorists, Fugative Financier. There's a good record for you. Bush didn't even pardon Sooter Libby, his own advisor, he commuted his sentence to fines only. Sandy Berger destroyed classified national security documents for his pal, Bill, so it couldn't be proven that Bill was warned about the 9/11 attacks and did nothing. He got a slap on the wrist ($10,000 fine and loss of security clearance) by the Bush administration. Don't think they could have done more, had they wanted to? If you want to start talking about pardoning criminals, you better start with the last administration. I don't love Bush, but I hate when it always "those dirty !@#$%^, and anyone on my side is O.K. no matter what they do. LEt's sling mud on EVERYONE, regardless of party!

LEt's sling mud on EVERYONE, regardless of party!

Hear, hear! +10 to that. Only thing is, no one was talking about Clinton, making it kinda irrelevant whether or not he helped out the Weathermen or anyone else.

Once again Steve when the conversation is about Bush the right always swings into Blame it on Clinton mode. We already had that conversation when Clinton was president. How about we stay on topic?

That'd be nice. Good luck with it though.

For sure.

SteveHouse and Luckydog,

What I want is for there to be equity in judgement. Left, Right, Middle, Bottom, and Top. My answer to Trex was in regard to his statement about Bush issuing pardons to everyone before leaving office. I was making the COMPARISON to Clinton's pardons. Since he was the last President to do that, it seemed relevant. You don't want equity apparently, you just want Bush and his advisors hide on a stick. As I stated farther down the page, Lets go after everyone that "lied" to the public about WMD's in Iraq. When that is the plan, I'll support it, as long as it is only the current administration that is being held to account, it's just partisan political garbage. You don't want to throw the Dems into the pot; that would mean that they'd have to find them all guilty, if Bush and his people were found guilty. That would be bad for the Dems in an election year.

I'd be ecstatic if we threw all the Constitution-shredders out. But cutting off the head seems like a good starting place to me.

But cutting off the head seems like a good starting place to me.

Shall we bust out the old rusty guillotines?

viva la revolucion

you missed one

start third war

resign

be pardoned

You also forgot blanket amnesty for Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the underlings.

nah they arent the kind who look out for each other

they are the sort of criminal who when they see a cohort about to get clipped by the fuzz they do something to make sure the popo sees said cohort and then escapes cleanly

if this happens there are going to be alot of folks thrown under the proverbial train

which is why it wont happen

Ah, it's the "I just have to outrun you, not the bear" mentality.

Forgot all about that one.

My point is, why not wait till Democrats have a majority in Congress and a President in the White House before trying to implicate Bush? I think if Congress jumps the gun while Bush is still in office, they will miss their chance at a conviction.

HARD TO ARGUE WITH THAT,

What happens when it's Obama in the Whitehouse when the next war starts? Do you want him impeached, too?

honestly if he gets in office and lies to us to start a war unprovoked

then your damn straight i want him impeached

we have killed roughly 1million iraqi's and more than 4k US soldiers in bush's illegal war he lied to start

that means bush is responsible for at least 1.004million murders

its time we stopped this childish bull@!$%# and fix our country before we try to fix the world

and im not fully sure i understand why you ask that question since i have never said anything to support the idea that im an obama supporter

OBAMA, Yes, if he deceives Congress and send sends our soldiers to certain death. I don't care who you are supporting the Dems or the GOP - impeach because leaders must be held accountable for their actions.

Hard to Argue,

Where did you get the we killed 1 million Iraqis number? A million may have died, but not as a result of American combat operations. They died mostly from terrorist actions and sectarian violence. What WE did was pull the lid off of the pressure cooker. Those animosities have existed for thousands of years, when we took out Saddam Hussein, the pressure was released, suddenly and dramtically. The only reason they weren't killing each other before was because Saddam was the baddest a$$ in town, if you messed with him you got killed. Since he was Sunni, he primarily went after and killed Shi'ites and Kurds, an estimated 400,000 of them BEFORE we when in. Same thing happened in Yugoslavia, the Soviets kept order by suppressing everyone, when they left, mayhem resulted. Wherever a repressed society is suddenly liberated (Africa, Asia) the exact same thing is going to happen. I guess it is O.K. with you that Saddam was massacring Shi'ites and Kurds, as long as they weren't doing it to each other. Cool your seathing hatred, my friend and look at the facts, stop listening to the ideologs on both sides.

Confessor,

Dennis J. Kucinich brought 35 articles to the table. (link) Article 14 is the one you are looking for,

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

.

ZanshinPost: Thank you.

Iraq had sanctions leading back to the Gulf War? Well hell, that couldn't have been because of the Gulf War. That would make too much sense.

As for fabricated WMDs, I give you this from the first Kucinich Articles of Impeachment.

(E) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information, which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:
(1) "Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing."
(2) "The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information."
(3) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller concluded: "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

Why did Hans Blix say he wouldn't be surprised at all if WMDs were found in Iraq?

This doesn't sound right. You have a source? Maybe he meant that if they weren't found, the Americans would have to fabricate them.

winsomecowby has the link, I'll provide the quote:

Asked if he thought Iraq no longer had banned weapons when he conducted his inspections, Blix replied: "It's one suspicion I have. You want to pin me down, but I still think it's too early to do that.

"I don't exclude that they can find things. ... I don't think I'd be surprised if they found it."

i dont give a rats rear end what hans blix said or didnt say

we didnt find the WMD therefore it was a lie made up by the bush white house to convince america is needed to be done

period end of story

he needs to be impeached for his thoughtless use of military as diplomacy

millions dead because of his lie

I'll provide the quote:

Thank you. All right, so this was in a less formal setting than in a UN report or a written statement. As it happened, he was right. They did find a case full of shells containing lethal gas. A leftover from their war with Iran, provided by the USA. I was surprised the US would be making such things.

hard to argue,

It's like you think history started in 2003...

Bush was *NOT* the only person who thought that Saddam had WMD. Why? Because he *DID* have WMDs. He used them. They were inventoried. Then they weren't there anymore. Why? Did he destroy them on his own outside of UN inspectors against the resolutions he agreed to or were they hidden and moved elsewhere? We didn't know. But Saddam was making sure to make us THINK he had them. Either we go in and inspect, as we were trying to do but Saddam was blocking us from doing OR we say 'ok, we don't think you do' and we release the sanctions that were killing millions of his citizens.

Which option were you for?

As it happened, he was right.

As it happened, that's sort of my point. We had no way to know for sure. So how could anyone be lying for believing one thing over another with evidence for both on the table?

Did you totally ignore my post? The Senate Select Committee that investigated whether the Administration's words meshed with the intelligence at the time found that they mot certainly did not. The layman's term for that is they lied. It's not a question of believing bad intel, it's not a question of picking one side of an equally-weighted coin, it's a outright lie.

An*. Good gravy, would happened there? "A" outright lie. LOL.

I didn't ignore it, but it was full of nothing factual or backed with evidence. Several investigations have shown your views to be wrong, but you ignore them because it doesn't sync with your predefined view of Bush and his gang being lying scum.

All you did was list Kusinich's charge. Charge is not fact. It is not even backed by fact. It doesn't even mesh with the several investigations that have shown us that there a perponderance of evidence that Iraq still had WMDs, was creating more and had attempted (unsuccessfully) to aquire nuclear material. And not all of the evidence has been found to be wrong, we know Saddam *DID* attempt to aquire nuclear material, but was turned down by Niger, even Wilson attested to this.

Present some facts to counter the congressional investigations and the Butler reports and we'll talk. Until then, you are just shouting obscenities into the wind. Thankfully, we still operate under the rule of law and the requirement for facts to be used in the determination of that law, not innuendo and hyperbole.

Partisan Hack,

First, providing a link from an opinion piece is not evidence. Instead, look at the several invesigations that show that opposite, including the Congresssional hearings and Butler Report.

Yes, the State Department doubted some of what the CIA and English intelligence communities were saying, which is where the President had to decide which to believe. Because of the beating he was taking from Democrats that he didn't act on the one report of AQ using planes to attack us, I daresay he erred on the side of caution.

You are also forgetting the numerous Democrats that said that Saddam had WMDs, including Clinton and Gore. The evidence THEY were getting was saying the same thing.

Like the neocons you're parsing things in the rear-view mirror.

I'm parsing them with the facts known at the time, not what we know now. That is the only fair way to assess it, don't you think?

try to hustle us yet again and to try to say black is white. We're not some cheap drunk on a date that you banged who you can claim the morning after was all over you at the bar

Classy.

all evidence that was presented to the WORLD by the Bush administration

And the Clinton administration

claimed that Saddam had WMDs as the major pretext for pressuring Congress to vote to authorize Bush going to war with Iraq.

I agree, and it was a mistake, one that I pointed out at the time. You can check out an article I wrote about it here. There were many many other reasons, including the WMD reason, to remove Saddam from power, even Clinton understood that regime change was the only way to solve the issue of Iraq. He was not to the point of doing it ourselves, but in the end that was the only way it was going to be resolved. I love being told that he was no threat because we had him contained, but those same people ignore that if he didn't have WMD then there was no reason to contain him anymore, was there?

Before Bush took office, over 60% of the Americans wanted us to remove Saddam from power. Why do you think that was the case? You are the one wanting to revinvent history, I am only trying to explain it as it was, not as others wished it were.

The situation as it was included the French, Germans and Russians saying "non", "nein" and "nyet" respectively. That is why there was no new resolution in the UN. The Bu@!$%#es turned their propaganda machine on full force, and people were pouring out French wines in the gutter in New York. We got "Freedom Fries" on the menu in the Senate cafeteria, and Rumsfeld's famous "Old Europe" expression. It was a campaign of ridicule. The German chancellor, Schröeder, was re-elected solely on his willingness to face up to American pressure. Of course a lot of smaller nations agreed with these three. And some supported the US, Berlusconi and the conservative Spanish government. These two didn't last long, but that is another story.

Erik,

Look around again, conservative leadership has been gaining ground in those countries the past few years...

As for Russia not saying yes, did you happen to notice them balking on sanctions against Zimbabwe? Just because Russia, France and Germany says no to something doesn't make it the wrong thing to do.

Maybe you should quit worrying about what other countries want us to do and focus on what Americans want us to do?

Maybe you should quit worrying about what other countries want us to do and focus on what Americans want us to do?

why would he do this? hes not american

why would we do this? we obviously cant make correct decisions, since bush is still in office and still stealing our freedoms without so much as a word from americans

Maybe you should quit worrying about what other countries want us to do and focus on what Americans want us to do?

That's my point precisely: It's called unilateralism. It was about denying what two allies had concluded from the facts at hand and making them suffer for it. The French lost billions on the semi-official US campaign that verged on trade sanctions.

It ignores nothing, it is a fact that he was not sure that Iraq didn't have WMD *because* Saddam was doing everything he could get away with to block the inspection process from occuring, as he had been doing for 12 years.

Asked if he thought Iraq no longer had banned weapons when he conducted his inspections, Blix replied: "It's one suspicion I have. You want to pin me down, but I still think it's too early to do that.

"I don't exclude that they can find things. ... I don't think I'd be surprised if they found it."

Now, if *HE* couldn't be 'pinned down' AFTER the invasion to say there were definately no WMDs, how is anyone else supposed to know 'for sure' that there were no WMDs?

It's not rocket science, Saddam was playing a game with the rest of the world, wanting us to think he had them while trying to get the sanctions removed. He lost the game.

And the simple fact is that because of *HIS* actions, there was never going to be a way to know for sure if he had them or not.

And, if everyone thought he didn't have them, then why were there still sanctions in place? Why was it ok to kill innocent children because of those sanctions if was obvious to the rest of the world that there were no WMD?

Here's a hint, it wasn't that simple, or obvious.

So, when people want to get off of their 'high horse' and start talking rationally about the issue, then perhaps the country can have a dialog. Until then, we are just going to see two sides shouting 'neener, neener' at each other, all for partisanship powergrabs.

America, the beautiful.

This is what Blix said in his February 2003 report to the UN Security Council:

Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.

At this point in time the United States demanded that the UN inspectors quit. The inspectors were withdrawn for this reason. The American attack was underway, Bush was not willing to wait further months for the inspectors to finish their work. At the same time the US was constantly furnishing new sites they wanted inspected, so as to make the inspection work seem interminable. One such claim was that the WMD work was going on under ground, and there were all these mobile labs being moved around the country side. It was a game, invented by the US.

We have several kinds of weapons under the WMD-label. Chemical, biological and nuclear. The hysteria was mostly about the potential for nuclear weapons. Blair calmly switched his rhetoric from saying Saddam had nuclear weapons to saying he likely had a nuclear weapons programme. Before the war he claimed weapons were fully operational, able to hit London within 48 hours. Using drones, no less. The whole yellow cake charade and aluminium tubes fairy-tale were about this capacity. oddly, no talk of centrifuges, which seems to be the main concern when talking of Iran's nuclear capacity. We have learned a lot about the whole infrastructure required to build any kind of nuclear weapon. ElBaradei was quite clear, no such infrastructure existed in Iraq.

When it became clear that no nuclear weapons existed, nothing endangering American soldiers and Israel, it was time to attack.

It is interesting that someone can think Iraq was attacked because Blix expressed some uncertainty at a press conference. He had found nothing and said as much. Wish the US would be as attentive of UN spokespeople on other occasions as well. What Bush thinks of the UN was forcefully demonstrated by the appointment of Bolton as UN ambassador, a man no one at the UN wanted to be seen talking to.

It is interesting that someone can think Iraq was attacked because Blix expressed some uncertainty at a press conference. He had found nothing and said as much. Wish the US would be as attentive of UN spokespeople on other occasions as well. What Bush thinks of the UN was forcefully demonstrated by the appointment of Bolton as UN ambassador, a man no one at the UN wanted to be seen talking to.

It's even FURTHER interesting that someone can suggest that anyone was saying Iraq was attacked because Blix expressed some uncertainty at a press conference.

You leave out part of the report to the UN that stated, quite clearly, that Iraq was in direct violation of 1441. That was why the inpsections were stopped and the attack started, because Iraq was STILL violating the requirement of unfettered inspections. The inspections could only be as good as the regime was allowing them to be and they were still blocking and hampering them.

As for the yellowcake charade, we know that Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake from Niger. They were unsuccessful, but they did make the attempt. Joe Wilson was even the source of confirming this fact.

That doesn't counterbalance the fact that the Bush Administration had been advised that the weapons didn't exist - and ignored the advice.

They had also been advised that the weapons did exist. That they chose the wrong information doesn't make them evil or liars.

Clearly the real reason that Saddam was pretending to hide them was to keep up his image of fear.

Except we had no way to know, for sure, he didn't have them. He was ordered, and agreed, to destroy all of those inventoried weapons in the presence of the UN inspectors and refused to do so.

You are not being reasonable or rational at all in evaluating the situation. You expect people to know fact from presented fact like a mindreader and accept one piece of evidence over another piece of evidence, all the while ignoring what is being presented to them by others. The fact that Saddam was doing everything he could to block inspections, was saying he was still at war with the US, was shooting at our planes on a daily basis, was supporting international terrorism and was making public attempts to aquire nuclear material presented a view to the administration that, when coupled with differing reports, caused them to accept the evidence that followed what they knew. It also caused them to believe people that they otherwise shouldn't have believed, who were making up their accounts, that did support a lot of known facts but were wrong nonetheless.

That doesn't make them evil, liars or criminals. That makes them human.

Partisan Hack,

What the devil are you talking about? We know NOW that there were no WMD, we didn't know then, at the time it was still an unknown, evidence on both sides of the discussion were there. If you are going to prove that Bush knew that there were no WMDs and still said that there were (in which case you have to include Clinton and Gore in on the conspiracy) then YOU are going to have to prove that.

Which is why an impeachment or warcrimes trail ISN'T going to happen, because there is no proof to back up the assertions.

What the devil are you talking about? We know NOW that there were no WMD, we didn't know then

That's funny, I remember many people knowing then. (Hans Blix on top of the heap) Perhaps you weren't getting your news from independent sources at the time?

You mean the CLINTON plans for regime change. Clinton is the one who made it the law of the land that Saddam be removed from power and the US would support that action.

Sorry, Partisan, but your views of history don't reflect the facts of history. Saddam, when not hemmed in, was a dangerous leader that supported international terrorism, shot at US and UK planes on a daily basis, still claimed to be at war with the US from the Gulf War, attempted to assassinate a former US president, was planning to attack the US after 9/11, had used chemical weapons before...

And you would have lifted those sanctions that were the only thing preventing him from restarting up his attempt to be the one true ruler of the Middle East.

Another shining example of trying to change history to match your wishful point of view:

This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, respect for human rights, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act. (see Note to 22 U.S.C. 2151 and 64 Fed. Reg. 67810). The groups were

* The Iraqi National Accord,
* The Iraqi National Congress,
* The Islamic Movement of Iraqi Kurdistan,
* The Kurdistan Democratic Party,
* The Movement for Constitutional Monarchy,
* The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and
* The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (education and training of an army), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

In November 1998 President Clinton stated that "The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."[

You stated:

So in no way did the Iraqi Liberation Act contemplate or support military action to remove Saddam Hussein

When in fact, as I pointed out, it did precisely that, just not with our military directly.

Clearly also Saddam's days of military power were long past.

So, Clinton was lying when he stated the following, or he did just an awesome job that Saddam was no longer an issue just a couple of short years later?

President Clinton stated in February of 1998:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998

That Clinton, what a liar... *rolls eyes*

For the record, I supported Clinton in 1998 when he made this statement, as I did when he attacked Iraq.

Did you?

Mr. Rhinehold makes a series of false statements, and well he knows it.

Really? List one.

The rest of us dearly wanted to save those children, despite the sanctions, and that is why the whole "oil for food" deal was set up.

Wouldn't it have been better, knowing the UN was incapable of managing this situation, to either end the sanctions or end the reason the sanctions were in place?

Instead, we just gave Saddam the ability to abuse the program to make more money for the adminstration and less for the people who needed it. It was an immense failure and only served to prolonge the situation further, causing more harm to the country.

There is the Downing Street memo

Seriously? The Downing Street Memo is the opinion of one person in the UK. Sorry, but it was not 'fact', it was opinion, and is meaningless.

I still don't know why people cling to that, it just goes to serve my point, really.

So, let's go down your 'list of proof'. Shall we?

"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."

Not a lie. Please tell me where the lie is here?

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other

Another true statement... so far you are failling... :(

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Bush got part of this one wrong. A lie or being wrong, can you prove he knew he was telling a lie here?

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

We found out that they did have drones. The intelligence about the capabilities of those drones was found to be bad. Again, where is the proof that he knew something was a lie and continued to tell it?

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

And they did. Only they turned out not to be provable as being used for chemical weapons. There were mobile labs, we know this and found them. Again, wrong but not lies, unless you want to redifine the word...

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Based on the intelligence of inside people in Iraq who we had in custody and we now know was feeing us bad intel. It was thought to be good at the time. Again...

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Again, a true statement, we did have intel that stated that. It turned out to be wrong...

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Again, this is true, read the Butler Report. This information was *NOT* based on the forged documents. Also go check out Joe Wilson. He brought back information that supported the fact that Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake from them. They did not get any, but the statement was that he SOUGHT uranium, not that he aquired it.

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters (6,604.3 US gallons) of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

Again, another true statement. Saddam was REQUIRED by UN Resolutions, based on the cease-fire that left him in power, to destory any and all material in front of UN inspectors.

In fact, I'm going to stop now because nothing on this 'list' compiled by... Roedy Green? resembles anything close to proof so far. It is nothing but a partisan hatchet job that ignores evidence and suplants it with his own view of what is and isn't factual. Good job, it is just another example of what I have been saying.

Let me know when Bush is on trial and loses, I would be very interested to see the 'facts' come to light. So far, I've seen very little. Personally, I wouldn't care a whit if he does, because I have no dog to hunt here. I just happen to hate people ignoring the rule of law and facts just because they have a hatred and want to fuel it.

Look, at this point your arguments are a complete waste of time, and yet again you provide no links to any evidence of your own. The absurdity of your position is clear from the get-go:

I'm sorry, I don't see where I need to provide links that someone isn't lying. I would think that someone wanting to prove someone lying would be the one required to provide the links and the benefit of the doubt that someone wasn't would be the default position. Apparently that's not the way it works in Partisan Hack land.

"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."

Not a lie. Please tell me where the lie is here?

The lie is the clear statement that Saddam's development and active use of WMDs was eminent and that the American people has reason to fear that he would use nuclear weapons at any time. That was a pure unadulterated lie. L-I-E. You know the meaning of that word, I hope. Though, given your Bush-like denial of reality, perhaps not.

The statement is that *IF* he was developing nuclear weapons and because he was preventing inspections from taking place as ordered, that the only way to know for sure that he was was if he used them. It is a logical and reasonable assessment of the situation. It in no way says that he has PROOF or knows for sure that he has them, only that we had no way to know for sure that he didn't because of his own actions. In fact, the statement itself admits that there is no proof, or he wouldn't be saying 'we cannot wait for the final proof'. It's called english...

Again, not a lie, it seems strange to me that you can even attempt to argue that an opinion, one that you may want to claim to be wrong, is a lie...

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other

Well, for that matter there are lots of nations that COULD some day do this. But there was little danger that Saddam was in a position to do it any more, as you know. So to try to use this as an excuse to go to war because of an eminent threat was at best a fear tactic and at worst a lie.

So, there was no chance that Saddam could, say, use some Anthrax he had laying around left over and hidden away from inspectors, get it to one of the terrorist groups he supported or even his own group that he ran (you know, the ones that tried to kill a former US president) and had it sent through the mail system to some senators...?

I'm not saying that he did, we still don't know who committed that act, but it is very possible that Saddam could have done that or something like that. He was hemmed in 'MILITARILY' but not against using terrorists as he was open to doing and had sone several times in the past.

That was the issue, we couldn't prevent al Qaeda from attacking us as they did, what made us think that Iraq was 'contained' anymore? Richard Clarke was sure that Al Qaeda and Iraq were in cohoots in Al Shifa, he still believes this to this day, the picture you want to paint that Iraq was a harmless toothless tabby is contrary to what most people believed and the reality of what he could have done.

Heck, even Putin, who was against our actions in Iraq, warned us that they had good intelligence that Iraq was planning on attacking the US after 9/11.

But at least you are admitting that it 'might not have been a lie', how very cordial of you.

Bush got part of this one wrong. A lie or being wrong, can you prove he knew he was telling a lie here?

No, he told a lie. He was told that the intelligence was bogus.

By who? The person giving him the intelligence or another group saying that they didn't trust the intelligence. Is he supposed to reject all intelligence that someone claims is invalid? If so, why was Bush raked over the coals for not acting on the al Qaeda 'intel' that they were thinking of using planes to attack us somehow?

You can't have it both ways. Bush had to make a decision on which intelligence to believe, he chose the wrong one, but that doesn't make him a liar.

Again, a true statement, we did have intel that stated that. It turned out to be wrong...

No, it was a lie, he did not have Sarin capabilities. Bush spread false intelligence from neocon collaborators.

The intelligence he had STATED that he did. It was wrong, that doesn't make him a liar, it makes him wrong, it makes our intelligence gathering techniques look like Keystone Cops and it is clear that we were duped by people who had just enough right information to make their misleading information sound plausable, especially considering what Saddam was trying to do.

Again, this is true, read the Butler Report. This information was *NOT* based on the forged documents. Also go check out Joe Wilson. He brought back information that supported the fact that Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake from them. They did not get any, but the statement was that he SOUGHT uranium, not that he aquired it.

Inquiring about uranium does not equal a reason to go to war. In fact, Saddam already had some quantity of yellowcake uranium, which was just recently transferred out of Iraq to Canada. Uranium does not equal an eminent nuclear attack.

If that were the only reason, then I would agree. It was a building of a case and this was one small section of that case. BUT, are you now agreeing that the statement was valid?

Again, another true statement.

Saddam was REQUIRED by UN Resolutions, based on the cease-fire that left him in power, to destory any and all material in front of UN inspectors.

Yes, he WAS required to destroy those materials in 1999, and all indications are that for the most part he complied fully. Therefore any claim of WMDs in 2002-3 based on gas weapons supplies was bogus.

No, all indications are NOT that he complied fully. You ignore the point that he was required to do so IN FRONT OF INSPECTORS so that the destruction could be verified.

In fact, we have no proof that the missing weapons were ever destroyed, they could very well have been moved out of the country. We don't know, which is the whole point. Which is why he was required to destroy them in front of inpsectors. We wouldn't have needed the inspectors at all if we were going to 'just take his word for it'.

So in other words you brought no new evidence to the table, addressed only the most superficial statements by Bush and completely ignored the ample evidence provided by Bush administration officials and others that Bush was told the truth and chose to fabricate a story that suited his purpose. Who knows, he is so weak-minded that he may have actually believed his lies. But as Cheney was behind them and he follows Cheney's lead like a puppy-dog there is little doubt that we was at minimum an accessory to Cheney's lies.

No, I debunked just about every single 'bush lied' statement as being ludicrious. There is nothing new to bring because I am not the one making baseless charges.

Bush did choose the intelligence that backed his view when presented with conflicting information, based on many other reasons including the actions of Saddam to make us think he had WMDs, the same information that Clinton and Gore used when THEY stated the same things. That doesn't make someone a liar or fabricating a story, it makes someone human and in a position where they were the ones on the hook for that decision. If the administration were that corrupt, why didn't they just plant all of this stuff and remove the issue?

Why didn't they allow the UN to take over Iraq after the war was initially over and let them handle the peacekeeping? Because Bush genuinely believed that there were WMDs there and he was afraid that the UN would brush it under the rug or fail to find them as they had been unable to find them for the 12 years prior. That speaks to being wrong, not manipulating.

I just happen to hate people ignoring the rule of law and facts just because they have a hatred and want to fuel it.

Look, your side considered a semen stain witch hunt to be worthy of the "rule of law" but wants to ignore war crimes, rampant corruption and treasonous acts. The TRUE rule of law is prosecuting crimes that hurt people. Bush has hurt untold millions of people with his lies and corruption. A price must be paid in the name of mercy and justice.

My side? Again, I am not a republican and have never voted for one. Quit trying to argue against strawmen and debate what is actually being stated.

The problem with Clinton was not that he had sex in the White House with an intern when he was married. I could give a whit. The problem came when he lied, under oath, in a sexual harassment trial, attempting to bypass his own law that he championed that gave the court the power to ask him of his past sexual behavior.

But that took a real willingness to ignore the law, not just incompetence and depending upon even more incompetent intelligence communities and practices.