CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Smoking Gun FOUND: Impeach Bush Immediately
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Smoking Gun FOUND: Impeach Bush Immediately

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=426

IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."
Special to BuzzFlash
Thursday, May 5, 2005
By Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "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."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press Ö nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.


Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's Guardian papers, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
Subscribe to his columns at www.GregPalast.com Media requests to contact(at)gregpalast.com Permission to reprint with attribution granted.


[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo - discovered by the Times of London. - GP]

post #2 of 23
Thread Starter 
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)
post #3 of 23
America, tragically, doesn't care.
post #4 of 23
Yeah I agree, if none of the other things (i.e. false war, corporate pandering, horrible economy, debt, etc.) haven't gotten Bush impeached then nothing short of him paying for abortions to women he's been with (some say he has) or being queer will get him thrown out. I think most people the ones who voted for him will shrug and say "at least Iraq is getting freedom". Plus everyone has known from the start its all about the oil.
post #5 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
America, tragically, doesn't care.
Dude, you are sooooooo wrong. We care about steriods and women who avoid weddings a whole lot
post #6 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
America, tragically, doesn't care.
I think most americans would and do care. However most of them have not even heard of this, and I haven't seen any of the big news networks even mentioning it.

Even among the extreemist republicans there are plenty who would demand an impeachment. Although many of them wouldn't believe the facts unless Bush said it straight to their face. Quit a cult mentality going with some of them it seems.
post #7 of 23
See, I think this is funny. Bush completely fucks up your country, lies about war, etc. and gets re-elected. In Canada, the government fixes the economy, runs 8 straight surpluses, finally starts doing something about their promises etc. but they gave contracts to their friends so they're getting kicked the fuck out of power.
post #8 of 23
Brainwashing goes a long way in the US. It was close for Bush, even so...and he came close to losing Texas.
post #9 of 23
Palast every other month finds the "smoking gun" to get BushCo investigated/impeached/jailed. Iraq is something the USGov has wanted for decades, a foothold to control the oil rich region. If anything he'll face scrutiny for something far less relevant like Clinton, rather than Republicans exploring his buildup of the MKLA/Serb/Bosnia bombing campaigns they went with a sex scandal.
If Kerry's Iran Contra Committee couldn't put most of those individuals away nothing will.
post #10 of 23
Guess what? This won't be reported.

But a handful in Congress are demanding an explanation. Contact them and tell them to keep pressing the attack, and contact your congressmen and tell them you want an explanation.
post #11 of 23
And in a striking example of "America doesn't care", this thread has been out here for almost a full month, and it has a total of 11 posts (including this one and the 2 that started it). It amazes me that the press has virtually ignored this information in the US.
post #12 of 23
A full month? Try two years.
post #13 of 23
Two years, Martian. And when the source is something called BuzzFlash you tend to approach the evidence with skepticism.
All that aside, I agree that at least 51% of the voting public doesn't give a shit about reasons for declaring war.
post #14 of 23
Wow, sorry, I thought it said 2007, not 2005. I just read the story a few weeks ago, and was surprised I hadn't seen it out here sooner. That's even sadder. I actually did just write my (Republican) representatives...like anything will become of that, other than them moving me up on the "Must Watch" list.
post #15 of 23
I'm sick of the current administration, and the Congress that has an even lower approval rating than Bush. Neither side is working for the American people anymore.

Between a president who's simply lost it, a Veep that seems devoid of any good qualities, and a Speaker of the House that's more Chicken Little than leader....we're really screwed.

Neither the Dems or Reps have anyone worthy or capable of being the true leader we desperately need to unite us.
post #16 of 23
Congress is doing okay, and people seem happy that it's no longer the rubber stamp committee the previous bunch was.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/...onggraphic.gif

I attribute low approval ratings to Congress's failures when it comes to putting a crimp in Bush's plans for permanent occupation of Iraq, and it's the Republicans who are to blame for this by supporting Bush's veto. It is Republicans who cannot debate the merits of their case but resort to calling their opponents traitors and cowards and such. It is the Republicans who are dragging the approval ratings down, and, more importantly, running interference for President Stupid.

I think it's great that Congress is finally getting around to investigating the malfeasance of the Bush Administration, malfeasance the previous batch ignored because they were too busy forcing people to keep their loved ones on life support and such. When I hear that the current Congress is not performing, I think back to when I was constantly reading about how the Democrats had no plan.
post #17 of 23
Congress has a lot of work to do and they will need to gird their loins and reinforce their backbones to do it. The first thing they need to do is bring an end to the war in Iraq. Between the billion dollar embassy, the escalating violence, the hideous oil amendment and the continued separation between what Bush says and reality, it's amazing that someone in congress can't come out and say, in no uncertain terms, "We are ending this war, Mr. President." Is there no legal way congress can end the war without Bush's approval?
post #18 of 23
I don't think so, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to get Bush to sign deadlines into law. Bush was all about deadlines regarding Somalia, I wonder why no one important is bringing that up and asking him why he isn't now.

Democrats in Congress have to deal with a petulant, stubborn president; one who has just enough support to make him effectively King. Other than introducing motions to end the war into every bill and thus bringing the government to a screeching halt - because Bush will never, ever voluntarily end the occupation of Iraq - what can Congress do? Earn a few more supporters by letting the Bush Administration shoot itself in the foot for a few more months? It's not ideal, but I'm still of the opinion that you guys traded up in November of 2006.
post #19 of 23
But doesn't it feel like there's an elephant in the room here? I don't know what it is -- the embassy, the oil deal -- it just feels like the most important element in the whole picture is being left out of all the dialog in congress about Iraq.
post #20 of 23
Maybe it has more to do with focusing on what Bush did and how badly it went rather than why he did it. Or maybe it has something to do with the Republicans being allowed to frame the debate and how that always ends up as a contest to see Who Loves Soldiers Best. What was the response of that horrid woman in the July 4th napkin set to one of Murtha's proposals? "Cowards cut and run, marines never do" or something like that? That's the level of debate we can expect from the US in times of war, is it?
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
Is there no legal way congress can end the war without Bush's approval?
Cut funding. Then it becomes Congress is hurting our soldiers. Off the top of my head, the executive branch doesn't have the right to declare war, correct? So on the flip side, it doesn't have the right to "end" a war either?
post #22 of 23
I heard that Bush has set a deadline, but he's not going to tell anyone the exact date.
post #23 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigolo Joe
So on the flip side, it doesn't have the right to "end" a war either?
I'm all for revoking the AUMF. I have no ideas about how exactly this is brought about. Is it presented as a bill that must be signed into law? Does the president have a voice? I think it would be strange if he did, but I don't know one way or the other.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Smoking Gun FOUND: Impeach Bush Immediately