05/31/05 - - If you think President Bush should be impeached, it's time to get serious.
We're facing huge obstacles -- and they have nothing to do with legal standards for impeachment. This is all about media and politics.
Five months into 2005, the movement to impeach Bush is very small. And three enormous factors weigh against it: 1) Republicans control Congress. 2) Most congressional Democrats are routinely gutless. 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a war criminal.
For now, we can't end the GOP's majority. But we could proceed to light a fire under congressional Democrats. And during the next several weeks, it's possible to have major impacts on news media by launching a massive educational and "agitational" campaign -- spotlighting the newly leaked Downing Street Memo and explaining why its significance must be pursued as a grave constitutional issue.
The leak of the memo weeks ago, providing minutes from a high-level meeting that Prime Minister Tony Blair held with aides in July 2002, may be the strongest evidence yet that Bush is guilty of an impeachable offense. As Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in late May:
* "First, the memo appears to directly contradict the administration's assertions to Congress and the American people that it would exhaust all options before going to war. According to the minutes, in July 2002, the administration had already decided to go to war against Iraq."
* "Second, 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."
The May 26 launch of www.AfterDowningStreet.org comes from a coalition of solid progressive groups opting to take on this issue with a step-by-step approach that recognizes the need to build a case in the arena of media and politics. The coalition is calling for a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives that would require a formal investigation by the Judiciary Committee.
"The recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq," attorney John C. Bonifaz recently wrote to Conyers. "If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: 'The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war -- and the argument can be made that White House deception in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq amounted to a criminal assault on that constitutional provision. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" is a very general term. And history tells us that in Washington's pivotal matrix of media and politics, crimes of war have rarely even registered on the impeachment scale.
In 1974, President Nixon avoided impeachment only by resigning soon after the Judiciary Committee, by a 27-11 vote, approved a recommendation that the full House impeach him for obstruction of justice in the Watergate scandal. Only 12 members of the committee voted to include Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia -- and his lies about that bombing -- among the articles of impeachment.
Another war-related impeachment effort came in response to the Iran-Contra scandal. You wouldn't have known it from media coverage or congressional debate, but the Reagan administration's Iran-Contra maneuvers were part of a Washington-driven war that enabled the U.S.-backed Contra guerrillas to terrorize Nicaraguan civilians, killing thousands in the process. When Rep. Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, pushed for impeachment of President Reagan (and, for good measure, Vice President George H. W. Bush) in 1987, he stood virtually alone on Capitol Hill.
Gonzalez was back on high moral ground the day before the first President Bush launched the Gulf War. On Jan. 16, 1991, the maverick Democrat stood on the House floor and announced he was introducing a resolution with five impeachment charges against Bush. The National Journal reported: "Among the constitutional violations Bush committed, according to Gonzalez, were commanding a volunteer military whose 'soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor white, black and Mexican-American or Hispanic-American,' in violation of the equal protection clause, and 'bribing, intimidating and threatening' members of the United Nations Security Council 'to support belligerent acts against Iraq,' in violation of the U.N. charter."
In the past, attempts to impeach presidents for war crimes have sunk like a stone in the Potomac. If this time is going to be different, we need to get to work -- organizing around the country -- making the case for a thorough public inquiry and creating a groundswell that emerges as a powerful force from the grassroots. Only a massive movement will be strong enough to push over the media obstacles and drag politicians into a real debate about presidential war crimes and the appropriate constitutional punishment.
Norman Solomon's new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death," comes off the press in June. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Roger Davis
2005-06-03 08:57:13 EST
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:49 -0700, al953 wrote:
> Impeachment Fever and Media Politics > > by Norman Solomon > > 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a > war criminal. > > >
Might be? Where have these people been?
Wm James
2005-06-03 23:51:02 EST
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:57:13 -0500, Roger Davis <RDavis@wausau.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:49 -0700, al953 wrote: > >> Impeachment Fever and Media Politics >> >> by Norman Solomon >> >> 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a >> war criminal. >> >> >> > >Might be? Where have these people been? > >
Earth. Where have you been?
here in the real world there are several issues involved with the impeachment nonsense. First of all, it's just silly nonsense. Anyone at all familiar with recent history since the gulf war can't possibly have a single functional neuron without recognozing the fact that resumption of hostilities was entirely justified with so many repeaded violations of the ceasefire no matter what else is alleged. Secondly, if there is an actual impeachable offence, it's unrelated to the mid east, but Bush's continuing neglect of his sworn duty by his allowing further thousands os criminals to invaded the border every day he's been in office, but the democrats and other kooks aren't discussing that. More to the point, the very idea of getting the congress to impeach Bush is simply laughble. Live with it.
William R. James
Brandon K. Montoya
2005-06-06 06:55:57 EST
Wm James wrote: > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:57:13 -0500, Roger Davis <RDavis@wausau.org> > wrote: > > >On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:49 -0700, al953 wrote: > > > >> Impeachment Fever and Media Politics > >> > >> by Norman Solomon > >> > >> 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a > >> war criminal. > >> > >> > >> > > > >Might be? Where have these people been? > > > > > > Earth. Where have you been? > > here in the real world there are several issues involved with the > impeachment nonsense. First of all, it's just silly nonsense. Anyone > at all familiar with recent history since the gulf war can't possibly > have a single functional neuron without recognozing the fact that > resumption of hostilities was entirely justified
Bush can't start a war on his own, not after he made it his imperatice to get permission.
That he lied to get that permission is an impeachable offense.
"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."
...
"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."
...
"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."
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)
> with so many repeaded > violations of the ceasefire no matter what else is alleged. Secondly, > if there is an actual impeachable offence, it's unrelated to the mid > east, but Bush's continuing neglect of his sworn duty by his allowing > further thousands os criminals to invaded the border every day he's > been in office, but the democrats and other kooks aren't discussing > that. More to the point, the very idea of getting the congress to > impeach Bush is simply laughble. Live with it.
No, we will impeach, convict and sentence this guy to nothing short of life if not see him hang by order of the court.
Traitors deserve nothing less.
-- The Neo Conservative movement in the Republican party was founded ideologically by Leo Strauss, a "man" who believed that saving his cowboy image for America was more important than truth or honesty. Since their inception they have invented imaginary threats to America such as Rumsfeld's overblown image of the USSR up to Saddam's non existent WMDs. The story is deeper, far deeper than I have written here in this sig file. Check out this three part documentary by the BBC to learn more about it.
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:55:57 GMT, "Brandon K. Montoya" <*d@att.net> wrote:
>Wm James wrote: >> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:57:13 -0500, Roger Davis <RDavis@wausau.org> >> wrote: >> >> >On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:49 -0700, al953 wrote: >> > >> >> Impeachment Fever and Media Politics >> >> >> >> by Norman Solomon >> >> >> >> 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a >> >> war criminal. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >Might be? Where have these people been? >> > >> > >> >> Earth. Where have you been? >> >> here in the real world there are several issues involved with the >> impeachment nonsense. First of all, it's just silly nonsense. Anyone >> at all familiar with recent history since the gulf war can't possibly >> have a single functional neuron without recognozing the fact that >> resumption of hostilities was entirely justified > >Bush can't start a war on his own, not after he made it his imperatice >to get permission. > >That he lied to get that permission is an impeachable offense.
You and the other nutcases have yet to prove any lie. And it should be trivial. There's not doubt he's a liar! Forst of all, he's a politician. And he's a republicrat. He absolutely lied to millions about being conservative. But here's a free clue for you: There's no law against lying. If there were we could put a fence around DC. and toss all the lawyers in it too. But back to the issue, the claim you are mindlessly parroting... Clinton (both of them), Kerry, Teddy the killer Kennedy, John Edwards, and host of others had the same intelligence data that Bush had. So did the frauds and liars and kooks in the UN, and all agreed with Bush. You planning to impeach all of them as well, or just keep mindlessly parroting your lines? And it's not at all clear that the intelligence was wrong. Saddam had a lot of time to hide or move a lot of stuff. That little has been found (note: more than zero) doesn't mean it never existed. We know he had more that what was accounted for partly because we sold it to him!
>"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."
Interesting quote. More interesting that you fail to mention that it's a third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say.
>... > >"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."
Interesting quote. More interesting that you fail to mention that it's a third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say.
>... > >"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." > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html > >The secret Downing Street memo
Yep, third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say.
>> with so many repeated >> violations of the ceasefire no matter what else is alleged. Secondly, >> if there is an actual impeachable offence, it's unrelated to the mid >> east, but Bush's continuing neglect of his sworn duty by his allowing >> further thousands os criminals to invaded the border every day he's >> been in office, but the democrats and other kooks aren't discussing >> that. More to the point, the very idea of getting the congress to >> impeach Bush is simply laughble. Live with it. > >No, we will impeach, convict and sentence this guy to nothing short of >life if not see him hang by order of the court.
Who is "we"? You and who else? You and the republican congress? ROTFLMAO!
>Traitors deserve nothing less.
So start with the worst and work your way down. Clinton have actuallly sold US nuclear and missle technology to the chinese red army. John Kerry actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy in war. Of course the whole democratic party is doing that now...
William R. James
Brandon K. Montoya
2005-06-08 02:31:39 EST
Wm James wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:55:57 GMT, "Brandon K. Montoya" > <theintrepid@att.net> wrote: > > >Wm James wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:57:13 -0500, Roger Davis <RDavis@wausau.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:49 -0700, al953 wrote: > >> > > >> >> Impeachment Fever and Media Politics > >> >> > >> >> by Norman Solomon > >> >> > >> >> 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a > >> >> war criminal. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Might be? Where have these people been? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Earth. Where have you been? > >> > >> here in the real world there are several issues involved with the > >> impeachment nonsense. First of all, it's just silly nonsense. Anyone > >> at all familiar with recent history since the gulf war can't possibly > >> have a single functional neuron without recognozing the fact that > >> resumption of hostilities was entirely justified > > > >Bush can't start a war on his own, not after he made it his imperatice > >to get permission. > > > >That he lied to get that permission is an impeachable offense. > > You and the other nutcases have yet to prove any lie.
The downing street memo in conjunciton with the secret yet increased raised are proof of the lie, deal with it.
> And it should > be trivial. There's not doubt he's a liar! Forst of all, he's a > politician. And he's a republicrat.
No excuse.
> He absolutely lied to millions > about being conservative. But here's a free clue for you: There's no > law against lying.
Lying to congress and deliberately subverting data to support a totally unecessary war whose purpose was the election of friends and the fattening of their pocket books is treason and totally impeachable, deal with it.
> If there were we could put a fence around DC. and > toss all the lawyers in it too. But back to the issue, the claim you > are mindlessly parroting... Clinton (both of them), Kerry, Teddy the > killer Kennedy, John Edwards, and host of others had the same > intelligence data that Bush had.
The data that BUSH FALSIFIED.
They believe his lies.
"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."
...
"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."
...
"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."
> So did the frauds and liars and > kooks in the UN, and all agreed with Bush. You planning to impeach > all of them as well, or just keep mindlessly parroting your lines?
You're sounding awfully shrill and desperate for one to use the term "Republicrat" and not expect people to see the underlying partisan attitude beneath your thin facade.
> And it's not at all clear that the intelligence was wrong. Saddam had > a lot of time to hide or move a lot of stuff.
*chuckles*
Give it up, US intelligence has concluded that all of his programs were dead.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.
In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
====================
(Material provided by Pro Bush poster named "Fester.") http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004
"Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level."
"Depending on its scale, Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so, but ISG discovered no indications that the Regime was pursuing such a course."
"ISG has uncovered no evidence of illicit research conducted into BW agents by universities or research organizations."
> That little has been > found (note: more than zero) doesn't mean it never existed. We know he > had more that what was accounted for partly because we sold it to him!
1 - He used it. 2 - Chemical weapons have expiration dates
> >"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." > > Interesting quote. More interesting that you fail to mention that > it's a third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say.
*chuckle*
All you paid shill are coughing up the same line, it's not going to work.
It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.
But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002 - a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.
At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq.
The Sunday Times of London recently reported on new evidence showing that "The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war." The paper cites newly released statistics from the British Defense Ministry showing that "the Allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001" and that "a full air offensive" was under way months before the invasion had officially begun.
The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode - not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.
On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone.
"It reminded me of a boxing match in which one of the boxers is told not to move while the other is allowed to punch and only stop when he is convinced that he has weakened his opponent to the point where he is defeated before the fight begins," says former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Von Sponeck, a thirty-year career diplomat who was the top UN official in Iraq from 1998 to 2000. During both the Clinton and Bush administrations, Washington has consistently and falsely claimed these attacks were mandated by UN Resolution 688, passed after the Gulf War, which called for an end to the Iraqi government's repression in the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. Von Sponeck dismissed this justification as a "total misnomer." In an interview with The Nation, Von Sponeck said that the new information "belatedly confirms" what he has long argued: "The no-fly zones had little to do with protecting ethnic and religious groups from Saddam Hussein's brutality" but were in fact an "illegal establishment...for bilateral interests of the US and the UK."
These attacks were barely covered in the press and Von Sponeck says that as far back as 1999, the United States and Britain pressured the UN not to call attention to them. During his time in Iraq, Von Sponeck began documenting each of the airstrikes, showing "regular attacks on civilian installations including food warehouses, residences, mosques, roads and people." These reports, he said, were "welcomed" by Secretary General Kofi Annan, but "the US and UK governments strongly objected to this reporting." Von Sponeck says that he was pressured to end the practice, with a senior British diplomat telling him, "All you are doing is putting a UN stamp of approval on Iraqi propaganda." But Von Sponeck continued documenting the damage and visited many attack sites. In 1999 alone, he confirmed the death of 144 civilians and more than 400 wounded by the US/UK bombings.
After September 11, there was a major change in attitude within the Bush Administration toward the attacks. Gone was any pretext that they were about protecting Shiites and Kurds - this was a plan to systematically degrade Iraq's ability to defend itself from a foreign attack: bombing Iraq's air defenses, striking command facilities, destroying communication and radar infrastructure. As an Associated Press report noted in November 2002, "Those costly, hard-to-repair facilities are essential to Iraq's air defense."
Rear Admiral David Gove, former deputy director of global operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on November 20, 2002, that US and British pilots were "essentially flying combat missions." On October 3, 2002, the New York Times reported that US pilots were using southern Iraq for "practice runs, mock strikes and real attacks" against a variety of targets. But the full significance of this dramatic change in policy toward Iraq only became clear last month, with the release of the Downing Street memo. In it, British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon is reported to have said in 2002, after meeting with US officials, that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," a reference to the stepped-up airstrikes. Now the Sunday Times of London has revealed that these spikes "had become a full air offensive" - in other words, a war.
Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers has called the latest revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in Congress.
It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment.
But another question looms, particularly for Democrats who voted for the war and now say they were misled: Why weren't these unprovoked and unauthorized attacks investigated when they were happening, when it might have had a real impact on the Administration's drive to war? Perhaps that's why the growing grassroots campaign to use the Downing Street memo to impeach Bush can't get a hearing on Capitol Hill. A real probing of this "smoking gun" would not be uncomfortable only for Republicans. The truth is that Bush, like President Bill Clinton before him, oversaw the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against a sovereign country with no international or US mandate. That gun is probably too hot for either party to touch.
The Sunday Times - Britain May 29, 2005 RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war Michael Smith
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown. The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make regime change in Iraq legal.
Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, told the meeting that the US had already begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime.
The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did.
During 2000, RAF aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone over Iraq dropped 20.5 tons of bombs from a total of 155 tons dropped by the coalition, a mere 13%. During 2001 that figure rose slightly to 25 tons out of 107, or 23%.
However, between May 2002 and the second week in November, when the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441, which Goldsmith said made the war legal, British aircraft dropped 46 tons of bombs a month out of a total of 126.1 tons, or 36%.
By October, with the UN vote still two weeks away, RAF aircraft were dropping 64% of bombs falling on the southern no-fly zone.
Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to degrade Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.
It was not until November 8 that the UN security council passed resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with serious consequences for failing to co-operate with the weapons inspectors.
The briefing paper prepared for the July meeting the same document that revealed the prime ministers agreement during a summit with President George W Bush in April 2002 to back military action to bring about regime change laid out the American war plans.
They opted on August 5 for a hybrid plan in which a continuous air offensive and special forces operations would begin while the main ground force built up in Kuwait ready for a full-scale invasion.
The Ministry of Defence figures, provided in response to a question from Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, show that despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September with a 100-plane raid.
The systematic targeting of Iraqi air defences appears to contradict Foreign Office legal guidance appended to the leaked briefing paper which said that the allied aircraft were only entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems.
> >... > > > >"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." > > Interesting quote. More interesting that you fail to mention that > it's a third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say.
You're repeating yourself, Polly ;^)
> >... > > > >"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." > > > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html > > > >The secret Downing Street memo > > Yep, third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say.
Keep whining that lie all you want, it won't change reality nor make the hounds on Bush's heels back off.
> >> with so many repeated > >> violations of the ceasefire no matter what else is alleged. Secondly, > >> if there is an actual impeachable offence, it's unrelated to the mid > >> east, but Bush's continuing neglect of his sworn duty by his allowing > >> further thousands os criminals to invaded the border every day he's > >> been in office, but the democrats and other kooks aren't discussing > >> that. More to the point, the very idea of getting the congress to > >> impeach Bush is simply laughble. Live with it. > > > >No, we will impeach, convict and sentence this guy to nothing short of > >life if not see him hang by order of the court. > > Who is "we"? You and who else? You and the republican congress? > ROTFLMAO!
Memebers of Congress are sworn to uphold their loyalty to the nation first, party loyalties come last. Those who step out of line are putting their career, liberty and life in jeopardy.
Your leaders have already lost the support of the moderate Republicans, they are no longer jumping when you say jump. They are far more patriotic than your neo con whores will ever be, and if they have caused to believe that Bush is a traitor they will vote to impeach and convict him.
> >Traitors deserve nothing less. > > So start with the worst and work your way down.
I already am, we'll start with Bush and keep going until we either run out of rope or get tired of typing the knots ;^)
> Clinton have > actuallly sold US nuclear and missle technology to the chinese red > army.
Did he send 1,600 troops to die for his friend's re-election based on blatant lies?
> John Kerry actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy in war.
Oh you're so non partisan, NOT!
Bitch drop the act, you're a pug in indie's clothing.
> Of > course the whole democratic party is doing that now...
*chuckles*
What a see through hack, fuck off.
> William R. James
-- The Neo Conservative movement in the Republican party was founded ideologically by Leo Strauss, a "man" who believed that saving his cowboy image for America was more important than truth or honesty. Since their inception they have invented imaginary threats to America such as Rumsfeld's overblown image of the USSR up to Saddam's non existent WMDs. The story is deeper, far deeper than I have written here in this sig file. Check out this three part documentary by the BBC to learn more about it.
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 06:31:39 GMT, "Brandon K. Montoya" <*d@att.net> wrote:
>Wm James wrote: >> >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:55:57 GMT, "Brandon K. Montoya" >> <theintrepid@att.net> wrote: >> >> >Wm James wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 07:57:13 -0500, Roger Davis <RDavis@wausau.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 21:54:49 -0700, al953 wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Impeachment Fever and Media Politics >> >> >> >> >> >> by Norman Solomon >> >> >> >> >> >> 3) Big media outlets shun the idea that the president might really be a >> >> >> war criminal. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Might be? Where have these people been? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Earth. Where have you been? >> >> >> >> here in the real world there are several issues involved with the >> >> impeachment nonsense. First of all, it's just silly nonsense. Anyone >> >> at all familiar with recent history since the gulf war can't possibly >> >> have a single functional neuron without recognozing the fact that >> >> resumption of hostilities was entirely justified >> > >> >Bush can't start a war on his own, not after he made it his imperatice >> >to get permission. >> > >> >That he lied to get that permission is an impeachable offense. >> >> You and the other nutcases have yet to prove any lie. > >The downing street memo in conjunciton with the secret yet increased >raised are proof of the lie, deal with it. > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html > >http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060305Y.shtml >http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill
Third party foreign unreliabe hear say. Meaningless drivel from a kook. Live with it.
>> And it should >> be trivial. There's not doubt he's a liar! First of all, he's a >> politician. And he's a republicrat. > >No excuse.
Not an excuse, just stating the obvious. Being a liar isn't impeachable. If it were, we could repopulate the government.
>> He absolutely lied to millions >> about being conservative. But here's a free clue for you: There's no >> law against lying. > >Lying to congress and deliberately subverting data to support a totally >unecessary war whose purpose was the election of friends and the >fattening of their pocket books is treason and totally impeachable, deal >with it.
Your empty rantings are not enough to make a case. You need actual evidence. Wild mindless parroting of accusations by kooks and foreign fanatics are meaningless.
>> If there were we could put a fence around DC. and >> toss all the lawyers in it too. But back to the issue, the claim you >> are mindlessly parroting... Clinton (both of them), Kerry, Teddy the >> killer Kennedy, John Edwards, and host of others had the same >> intelligence data that Bush had. > >The data that BUSH FALSIFIED.
According to you.
>They believe his lies.
And you believe theirs.
>"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."
A useless quote from a proven nutcase.
>... > >"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."
Another useless quote from a proven nutcase. Wow, must be true then, huh?
>... > >"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." > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
And yet another useless quote from a proven nutcase. I noticed you still didn't bother with any actual evidence.
>> So did the frauds and liars and >> kooks in the UN, and all agreed with Bush. You planning to impeach >> all of them as well, or just keep mindlessly parroting your lines? > >You're sounding awfully shrill and desperate for one to use the term >"Republicrat" and not expect people to see the underlying partisan >attitude beneath your thin facade.
Use google and save yourself the trouble of recovering from making a fool of yourself.
>> And it's not at all clear that the intelligence was wrong. Saddam had >> a lot of time to hide or move a lot of stuff. > >*chuckles* > >Give it up, US intelligence has concluded that all of his programs were >dead.
First of all, it's CNN, hardly reliable. Secondly, it's irrelevant. Contrary to your parrot trainers' claims, the WMDs were not the only issue (Read a little). They weren't even the major issue! He was harboring and supporting terrorists, he had repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement and repeatedly violated the useless UN's nonsense as well. Thirdly, the fact that he had WMDs was never in doubt, we know he had them in part because we sold them to him. The question was where they went and some are still unaccounted for.
>> That little has been >> found (note: more than zero) doesn't mean it never existed. We know he >> had more that what was accounted for partly because we sold it to him! > >1 - He used it. >2 - Chemical weapons have expiration dates
Irrelevant. It doesn't disappear when the date expires. It's like the "Best if used by" date on food, still edible a long time afterward.
>> >"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." >> >> Interesting quote. More interesting that you fail to mention that >> it's a third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say. > >*chuckle*
Can't handle reality, or now matching parrot lines?
>All you paid shill are coughing up the same line, it's not going to >work.
Too late for google to save you from making a fool of yourself.
>Not with this: > >http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060305Y.shtml >http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill
BWHAAAAA!!!!!!! Oh, there's your sources! ROTFLMAO!
>> > >> >"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." >> >> Interesting quote. More interesting that you fail to mention that >> it's a third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say. > >You're repeating yourself, Polly ;^)
You aren't going to bother attempting to answer it, huh?
>> >"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." >> > >> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html >> > >> >The secret Downing Street memo >> >> Yep, third party foreign quote and meaningless hear say. > >Keep whining that lie all you want, it won't change reality nor make the >hounds on Bush's heels back off.
What hounds? Some foreign kook being followed by a handful of parrots?
>> >> with so many repeated >> >> violations of the ceasefire no matter what else is alleged. Secondly, >> >> if there is an actual impeachable offence, it's unrelated to the mid >> >> east, but Bush's continuing neglect of his sworn duty by his allowing >> >> further thousands os criminals to invaded the border every day he's >> >> been in office, but the democrats and other kooks aren't discussing >> >> that. More to the point, the very idea of getting the congress to >> >> impeach Bush is simply laughble. Live with it. >> > >> >No, we will impeach, convict and sentence this guy to nothing short of >> >life if not see him hang by order of the court. >> >> Who is "we"? You and who else? You and the republican congress? >> ROTFLMAO! > >Memebers of Congress are sworn to uphold their loyalty to the nation >first, party loyalties come last. Those who step out of line are putting >their career, liberty and life in jeopardy.
Wrong. Read a little before parroting. Members of the congress, the president, the vice president, and the justices of the court are all sworn to defend the US Constitution. Not the people or the parties at all.
>Your leaders have already lost the support of the moderate Republicans, >they are no longer jumping when you say jump. They are far more >patriotic than your neo con whores will ever be, and if they have caused >to believe that Bush is a traitor they will vote to impeach and convict >him.
It really wouldn't matter if the "moderate republicans" existed or not, the republicans have proven to be the twins of the sleaze bags they replaced. They are socialist liars who are interested only in protecting their position and couldn't care less about anything else. But their positions are tied with their party, and they aren't going to do squat regarding a president of their own party. If you seriously think they are going to show any interest in impeachment based only on the ranting nonsense from some fanatic kook fraud in europe without a shred of evidence, then you should adjust your medication.
>> >Traitors deserve nothing less. >> >> So start with the worst and work your way down. > >I already am, we'll start with Bush and keep going until we either run >out of rope or get tired of typing the knots ;^)
Like I said, start with the worst.
>> Clinton have >> actuallly sold US nuclear and missle technology to the chinese red >> army. > >Did he send 1,600 troops to die for his friend's re-election based on >blatant lies?
I could say he personally spead AIDS to millions. That would be as credible as your nonsense.
>> John Kerry actually gave aid and comfort to the enemy in war. > >Oh you're so non partisan, NOT!
I am partisan. I hate socialists. That's why I hate both socialist parties. I respect the constitution, so I hate the two anti-constitution parties.
>Bitch drop the act, you're a pug in indie's clothing.
And to think... A simple google search and you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself. ROTFLMAO! You parrots just can't bother with learning what you are talking about, can you? Just parrot the lines!
>> Of >> course the whole democratic party is doing that now... > >*chuckles* > >What a see through hack, fuck off.
So you don't have a line and can't refute anything either, huh?