View Full Version : John Kerry to call for Impeachment of Bush
Sasaki Kojiro
06-06-2005, 18:21
Is this for real? (http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8681)
If he is serious then what's point? Cheney steps in if Bush leaves.
John Kerry to call for impeachment of George Bush
6/4/2005
John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times. The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush's administration "fixed" intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.
The Downing Street Memo is the leaked secret British document that details the minutes of a 2002 meeting between top-level British and American government officials. The memo states that George Bush "was determined" to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
So far neither government has disputed the accuracy of the memo.
The memo caused an uproar in Britain and made a significant impact in the British national elections, but has recieved little attention in American news.
The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush's impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore's website and the Democratic Underground.
Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush's impeachment to Congress, on Monday.
Kerry said of the memo: "When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the idea that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"
House Representative John Conyers has written to the President regarding the memo:
"...a debate has raged in the United States over the last year and one half about whether the obviously flawed intelligence that falsely stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was a mere 'failure' or the result of intentional manipulation to reach foreordained conclusions supporting the case for war. The memo appears to close the case on that issue stating that in the United States the intelligence and facts were being 'fixed' around the decision to go to war."
There is a growing movement on the internet and in Congress for a "Resolution of Inquiry" into issues surrounding the planning and execution of the Iraq war, especially in regard to the Administration's handling of intelligence.
John Dean, a key Watergate figure, wrote in a June 2003 column for a legal website, that, "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked... Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."
However, in practical terms impeachment in the U.S. Senate requires a 2/3 majority for conviction, which is unlikely given that 55 out of 100 Senators are Republican.
When asked about the Downing Street Memo on May 23, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "If anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that's all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence.
"And in terms of the intelligence, it was wrong, and we are taking steps to correct that and make sure that in the future we have the best possible intelligence, because it's critical in this post-September 11th age, that the executive branch has the best intelligence possible."
KukriKhan
06-06-2005, 18:53
Funny...our own AdrianII brought this subject up May 18th in this forum:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47875
What changed in 3 weeks?
Templar Knight
06-06-2005, 21:28
hehe ~D
don´t see why not........there were people that wanted to impeach clinton because he lied about getting a bj....
i think lying with every teeth in your mouth about a freaking war is worse...
Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 21:36
The big difference is Ken Starr had the majority party backing his actions (and no, I didn't support the Republicans doing it either). Congress has to call for a special prosecutor to launch an investegation, and Mr. Flip Flop aside, I don't see much groundswell from the Democrats, let alone the Republicans. Kerry's doing this to grandstand. Sadly, as much as he promised he wouldn't, lately he's resorted to the 'stolen election', 'disenfranchised voters', 'we didn't lose' hate rhetoric. I guess an ego that big must be soothed somehow.
Steppe Merc
06-06-2005, 21:46
It seems a bit like Kerry looking like a sore loser... you'd think they try and get a Democrat with a bit more credibilty in the eyes of the people... like one that didn't lose to a moron... ~;)
Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2005, 22:12
Man, the dems are becoming the party of clowns. Just look at their DNC chariman: Howard "YEEEAAAAAHHHHIIII!" Dean.
Crazed Rabbit
Don Corleone
06-06-2005, 22:21
Yeah. Howard Dean got elected Chair of the DNC with statements like "We need to present ideas and stop attacking the Republicans as our sole source for garnering votes."
Yet, last week, in explaining why Election Day needs to be a holiday, he had this to say: "It's not fair. Our people have to work 8, 10 hours a day and then come home and get in line. I don't know of any Republicans that have ever done an honest day's hard work in their lives".
Yeah, that'll secure the crossover vote.
doc_bean
06-06-2005, 22:27
How hard is it to find a few good politicians amongst 300 million people ???
:help:
Crazed Rabbit
06-06-2005, 22:53
Pretty hard, since the good men go into business, where there's more money. Only people who can't work an honest job, yet aspire to riches (cough*lawers*cough ~;) ) become politicians.
Oh, and those few who want to actually change something for the better. But those are a rare minority.
Crazed Rabbit
How hard is it to find a few good politicians amongst 300 million people ???
:help:
couse its the rich people that become politicans... and amongst the riches that become president.
and, well, rich people in general are people I despise for varius reasons.
KukriKhan
06-06-2005, 22:59
..."the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."...
That's gonna be the sticky bit; what did the author mean by 'fixed'.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2005, 23:45
couse its the rich people that become politicans... and amongst the riches that become president.
and, well, rich people in general are people I despise for varius reasons.
Just remember, Dubya was the least "rich" of the four contestants (Kerry, Edwards, Cheney, W). At least worth the least of the four.
And it sounds like John Kerry really doesn't want a shot at running again.
ICantSpellDawg
06-06-2005, 23:53
if bush actually doctored intelligence in favor of a war with iraq then he should be impeached, removed from office and most likely be imprissoned.
such an action would be, probably, one million times worse than Clinton's perjury and 950,000 times worse than Nixon's misdeeds on a legal scale
but im glad that we went and that good things will happen from his illegal deed (if he is guilty of it). heh
however, we will see how this turns out
Kerry and the Democrats would only be hurting themselves if they tried this, its probably never going to happen.
Samurai Waki
06-07-2005, 02:21
Aside from impeachment... I think a good ol' Court Marshal would be most favorable if he's found guilty. Tie him to a wooden post and fire 3 times. :rifle:
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-07-2005, 02:28
That's a lovely way to speak about your President. You should at least respect the office he holds, if not the person who is holding it.
And the moderators know where you live. :book:
Samurai Waki
06-07-2005, 02:35
He's only half my president ~;) and I didn't vote for him
bmolsson
06-07-2005, 03:14
When does the American presidents have time to actually do their job ??
doc_bean
06-07-2005, 09:51
The White House staff is gigantic, the presidents' job is to hire capable people who can help achieve his goals.
After that's done, he can kick back at the ranch :cowboy:
bmolsson
06-07-2005, 10:27
The White House staff is gigantic, the presidents' job is to hire capable people who can help achieve his goals.
After that's done, he can kick back at the ranch :cowboy:
You mean like Rumsfeld ?? ~;)
Ja'chyra
06-07-2005, 11:07
If he lied to the public about the reasons for the war then he should be charged.
If he just came straight out and said we want to attack Iraq because we are going to use them as an example of what will happen to you if we even think you had anything to do with terrorist attacks on our people then I'm sure he would have got the support he needed form the public. I'd vote for him if he said that and I rate him one step below an untrained chimp.
The White House staff is gigantic, the presidents' job is to hire capable people who can help achieve his goals.
After that's done, he can kick back at the ranch :cowboy:
Napoleon said the surest path to victory is through the proper delegation of authority.
After he was done with Europe, Napoleon kicked back at Elba.
ICantSpellDawg
06-07-2005, 18:47
If he just came straight out and said we want to attack Iraq because we are going to use them as an example of what will happen to you if we even think you had anything to do with terrorist attacks on our people then I'm sure he would have got the support he needed form the public. I'd vote for him if he said that and I rate him one step below an untrained chimp.
im sure yours was the vote he was looking for
and it would have never flown if he had told the truth that he wanted to "use war as an example" - that is just absurd
in my limited opinion - he weighed the benefits and consequences, realized that the conflict would do more good than harm and went ahead, following the legal means to that end
if he went beyond his legal authority then we have a problem, but as it stands now he took a good and decisive action
One must actually read the memo before jumping to conclusions or making opinions - especially some that have already made such comments - pointing the finger at John Kerry.
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
[emphasis added]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Players:
the officials present at the secret meeting
Below is a breakdown of the various individuals mentioned in the memo - all of whom were present during the meeting with the Prime Minister.
• Foreign Policy Advisor - David Manning
• Matthew Rycroft - aide to Manning, wrote up the minutes of the meeting.
• Defence Secretary - Geoff Hoon
• Foreign Secretary - Jack Straw
• Attorney-General - Lord Goldsmith
• Cabinet Secretary - Sir Richard Wilson
• Chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee - John Scarlett
• Director of GCHQ - Francis Richards, head of the UK's "signals
intelligence establishment", an intelligence agency, which reports
to the Foreign Secretary
• Director of SIS (aka MI6) - Sir Richard Dearlove, identified as 'C' in the
meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service
• Chief of the Defence Staff - Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
• Chief of Staff - Jonathan Powell
• Head of Strategy - Alastair Campbell
• Director of Political & Govt Relations - Sally Morgan
(We will be posting a revised version of this list with descriptions of the various roles and their US equivalents soon.)
Though it is sometimes difficult to equate a given official to his or her US counterpart, it's clear that this was a meeting at the highest level within the UK government.
Attendees included three members of the Cabinet (Prime Minister Blair, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary), the nation's most senior bureaucrat (the Cabinet Secretary), three out of the four top people from the UK intelligence community (the JIC Chair and the heads of MI6 and GCHQ), the head of the armed forces and four of the innermost circle of the PM's political advisors.
The relatively junior level of the author bears no relevance to the contents, which describe the thinking and opinions of the principals.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html
Now one must understand like it has already been pointed out what was the context of the statement.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Does the statement mean that intelligence was being made up - or did it mean gather the intelligence that is out there that supports the already desired conclusion.
However one must understand also that in this memo the statement is a perception of an individual who attended a meeting in the United States and shared his information with his peers in a summarized format. What details were lost in his summarized statement? What was lost in the transposing of the meeting into these minutes? What does the term being fixed around the policy mean? According to one report I have read the term used in Britian does not mean make up intelligence - but alludes to something else.
A conviction of Impeachment needs more then hearsay evidence to happen. Until then - while the memo can be seen as damning its not evidence.
A decent write up on the memo itself
policy" line appeals to the conspiracy minded, but more likely indicate a British intel speak spin on the intelligence gathering and analysis related to Iraq's WMD program and terrorist ties. The " wanted to remove Saddam, through military action" (which it should be remembered is, at best, 4th-hand reported in the memo), doesn't seem to rise to the level of "smoking gun." It's worth remembering that a non-military option, encouraging Shiite revolt after the first Gulf War, had previously been half-heartedly attempted and hundreds of thousands of Shiites paid with their lives.
Critics contend the memo proves that the decision to go to war was already made prior to the meeting, and many months before Congressional authorization. Ironically the memo itself provides the best evidence that while war may have seemed "inevitable," it was most certainly not decided on. Why? This line: "The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential," kicks off the major section of the memo where British options are discussed. What follows is a pretty accurate foretelling of the conditions upon which the "essential" involvement of the UK could be cemented. While UK support for a winning military strategy was indicated, "on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the [UN] ultimatum."
http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005992.php
Just remember, Dubya was the least "rich" of the four contestants (Kerry, Edwards, Cheney, W). At least worth the least of the four.
And it sounds like John Kerry really doesn't want a shot at running again.
yeah well they are all disgustingly rich... and all so Far far away from where I stand politicly for me to even like any of them the slightest. :bow:
If he lied to the public about the reasons for the war then he should be charged.
If he just came straight out and said we want to attack Iraq because we are going to use them as an example of what will happen to you if we even think you had anything to do with terrorist attacks on our people then I'm sure he would have got the support he needed form the public. I'd vote for him if he said that and I rate him one step below an untrained chimp.
well then it would make more sense to bomb Saudi-Arabia to hell, not Iraq... but yeah, forgot the Bushites like Saudi-Arabia for some... "reason"... ~;)
:bow:
Tribesman
06-08-2005, 01:05
Radleg One must actually read the memo before jumping to conclusions or making opinions
Isn't that the same memo that Plaid Cymru and the SNP are using to try and impeach Tony Blair ?
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
What does the term being fixed around the policy mean?
Fixed is generally the same as rigged . Basically , including "evidence and intelligence" that will support your aims while omitting intelligence and evidence that shows the policy is based on a pack of lies and half truths .
Similar to the fixing of the British Attourney Generals report , taking 23 pages of pro and con arguement and reducing it to 1 page of just pro arguements .
Radleg One must actually read the memo before jumping to conclusions or making opinions
Isn't that the same memo that Plaid Cymru and the SNP are using to try and impeach Tony Blair ?
I normally don't pay attention to British Politics - so why don't you tell me.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
What does the term being fixed around the policy mean?
Fixed is generally the same as rigged . Basically , including "evidence and intelligence" that will support your aims while omitting intelligence and evidence that shows the policy is based on a pack of lies and half truths .
Similar to the fixing of the British Attourney Generals report , taking 23 pages of pro and con arguement and reducing it to 1 page of just pro arguements .
If the comment was just fixed I would understand what the intent of the paragraph is. For instance - the game is fixed for the Browns to win. That is clear.
The term But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy is not so clear cut - especially when its stated from a third party viewpoint at a briefing of peers outside of the orginial meeting.
What exactly was said in the meeting in the United States? If you can answer that one - and show what the exact statements that were stated - then I might change my opinion - but the if this document was entered into a court of law - which the impeachment process has to follow certain rules - and I am sure entering of evidence is one of them - then it can not be third party hearsay to have any bearing. And that Tribesman is the main point of what I stated. This is not conclusive evidence of anything but one man's viewpoint of a meeting that he was included in and how he briefed it to his peers.
Tribesman
06-08-2005, 01:23
I normally don't pay attention to British Politics - so why don't you tell me.
but they are Americas greatest ally , surely you should care ~D
But seriously (for a change) , there was a thread on it a while back , months before the UK elections , the main thrust of the topic was how funny it was that the people bringing the action , under a very old (since it was last used 200 years ago) parliamentary proceedure , had hired Cherie Blairs law firm to bring the action .
I normally don't pay attention to British Politics - so why don't you tell me.
but they are Americas greatest ally , surely you should care ~D
I can only pay attention to how the media reports it - I can not understand all the dynmics of the British party system. That and the definations of liberial would probably drive me insane.
But seriously (for a change) , there was a thread on it a while back , months before the UK elections , the main thrust of the topic was how funny it was that the people bringing the action , under a very old (since it was last used 200 years ago) parliamentary proceedure , had hired Cherie Blairs law firm to bring the action .
Must of missed it.
And it sounds like John Kerry really doesn't want a shot at running again. Oh I have not doubt that he wants to run again- it just aint gonna happen. ~;)
I think lots of Dems had "buyers remorse" not long after Kerry won the primaries.. and judging by his performance, they won't let him get another chance to screw it up. ~D
Proletariat
06-10-2005, 00:03
The Downing Street memo needs to be read in the context of this statement to the nation by the President back in October of 2002:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. 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.
Throughout the buildup to the Iraq War, we constantly heard that we did not have "perfect evidence." I'm not sure how anyone could read some of the almost laughable claims of missed opportunities of potential dot connecting in the 9/11 Commission Report (though there were some legitimate criticisms as well), the Sadam rhetoric from the Clinton Administration that would have made Colin Powell blush, and the palpable insecurity felt by those of us on the East Coast (and I'd imagine elsewhere) in the wake of 9/11 and conclude that this country didn't go into the Iraq War with our eyes wide open and our patience worn to a thread.
You can second guess all you want - and you may even be right - but this was not George Bush's war. This was a bipartisan war. A frighteningly aggressive, overreaching display of raw power over clear eyed judgment? Perhaps (perhaps not). But I say we were entitled, justified and on the whole in the right to make that reasonable judgment.
There can be no doubt that this lunatic was going to reconstitute WMD, whether sooner or later and that when he did, he would use it to hold us and/or the world hostage. Was it worth all the death/destruction and clusterfluck we have there now to take him out? In retrospect, maybe not. But that's hard to know even now. We know a lot more now than we knew then. A decision had to made on imperfect information. We made it.
This memo sheds ZERO light on the logic for going to war. Zero.
Goofball
06-10-2005, 00:28
There can be no doubt that this lunatic was going to reconstitute WMD, whether sooner or later and that when he did, he would use it to hold us and/or the world hostage.
And therein lies the problem. You accept that forecast as an absolute truth, when it is anything but.
Proletariat
06-10-2005, 00:37
Oh well. Hindsight is twenty twenty and all, but if I was back where I was then and I only knew what I knew then, I'd still support the action. Every single time.
Proletariat
06-10-2005, 00:40
Btw, how does the Opinion of a British intelligence officer, constitute Proof of anything?
Since when did Opinion = Proof?
Could one of the lefties explain that to me?
Goofball
06-10-2005, 17:14
Btw, how does the Opinion of a British intelligence officer, constitute Proof of anything?
Since when did Opinion = Proof?
Could one of the lefties explain that to me?
No problem.
Opinion = proof when you happen to agree with the opinion.
But please don't for a second try to make this a phenomenon that is limited to "the left."
Just think of all of the "proof" that "the right" sold the rest of the world as gospel with respect to reasons for invading Iraq.
Proletariat
06-10-2005, 17:16
Sure, the right does it, too. Eff them. The BA did not.
The frightening (and incriminating) parts are these
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
this is as close to official as is going to be seen until charges are brought. and what it looks like is the administration trying to create an excuse to go to war
ICantSpellDawg
06-11-2005, 01:10
The frightening (and incriminating) parts are these
this is as close to official as is going to be seen until charges are brought. and what it looks like is the administration trying to create an excuse to go to war
the quote; "seemed" as well as others are the clairvoyant opinions of a single person.
they prove nothing conclusivly.
there is too much speculation in the document for it to be used as evidence.
the document serves only as an incentive to open up an outside investigation.
the congressional intelligence commitee and that on the WMD both came out conclusivly that they did not believe that the administration "doctored" the evidence, but there is always room for an outside investigation.
while the congressional committees were of course biased in favor of the govt., they were filled with investigators from all parties and from political outsiders
their reports seemed to be a RELATIVE whitewash of any criminal actions by the US admin and instead pointed to the failure of the modern intelligence system worldwide (in particular: data collection, the passing upward of intelligence and reliance on dated assumptions of threat)
Proletariat
06-16-2005, 22:43
Bump.
The problem with this memo as I see it is the disconnect between what it actually says and what some people want it to say.
If a precondition is set that any military action must have a legal basis, then in order to take military action you must consider the legal basis for it. In acknowledging that humanitarian concerns etc are not adequate legal basis for an invasion, the memo is not alluding to some sort of deviousness but simply reporting the speaker's acknowledgement of a fact. That the Bush Administration considered the legal basis for an invasion and found only WMD a legitimate one under the circumstances does not mean they said "we've got to trump up a WMD charge to justify this invasion". That inference is there if that's what you want to see, but the memo doesn't actually say that - and anyone who knows anything about executive branch memos knows that they do not trust their conclusions to inference. They are very direct.
In other words, what this memo does not say is that the Bush Administration chose a legal basis that they knew was false. Such a memo, if it exists, would be a "smoking gun"; this memo is not such a memo. The most damning statement in the memo was that "the case is thin", which refers to the case that must necessarily be put before the international community in order to rationalize the invasion. For an equivalent, consider a lawyer who acknowledges that his case is thin but still believe the case is correct. The weakness of evidence does not prove the falsehood of the WMD rationale.
A "smoking gun" would state clearly that the Bush Administration knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and made that case anyway. The memo says nothing that approaches this. So it really just leads us back to square one: the unresolved issue of what the Administration knew, if anything, and when they knew it.
This memo is being "picked up" because a buzz is being generated around it that will get people reading and watching the news. Far from being a departure from the corporate media ethic, this is the corporate media ethic in action. And set into action intentionally by congressional Democrats.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.