Activism Discussion: Impeachment Fever And Media Politics

Impeachment Fever And Media Politics
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Al953
2005-06-03 00:54:49 EST
Impeachment Fever and Media Politics

by Norman Solomon

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."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

The secret Downing Street memo

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)

> 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.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Wm James
2005-06-07 22:55:02 EST
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.

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

> 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."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

> 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.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

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.

Not with this:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060305Y.shtml
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill

The Other Bomb Drops
By Jeremy Scahill
The Nation

Wednesday 01 June 2005

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.


=================

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html

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 minister’s 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.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Wm James
2005-06-15 12:33:02 EST
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?

William R. James


Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron