Bush's War Justification letter to Congress 3/19/03 is a lie - so impeach?

[papau]

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040617/6294563s.htm

USA Today:

In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003 -- the day the war in Iraq began -- Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who 'planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


So why is there no impeachment discussion after the 911 panel has noted the Bush lies?

[truthspeaker]

1. holy shit, I had no idea he had lied that blatantly

[Q3JR4]

2. ...

The Repugs don't care (their party is in power) and the Dems are going to do what they seem to be getting really good at...roll over and take it without comment.

[jarab]

3. This should be evidence for our political gain - in the least. eom

...O...

[nycmjkfan]

4. What?

You must be one of those Pinko Commies that side with the terrorists. Charlie Daniels told me all about you.

We need to give our great leader all the slack and liberties he needs to save us from the evildoers.



Sarcasm off...

[plcdude]

5. this is the smoking gun

with regards to *'s statement today that he or his administration never said Iraq or Sadaam cooperated or collaborated with the 911 attack. He (WH lawyers) put it in writing as the rationale for using armed force against Iraq. He has lied openly today and either he takes it back with the usual "I misspoke" excuse or the democrats start talking about impeachment proceedings. I think it is fairly clear and straight forward at this point. He also publically admitted as did Rumsfeld that Iraq was not part of the 911 attack. How do we point this out effectively to those who can pursue formal means?

[paulk]

6. John Dean has been saying this for months

Nice to see it in a mainstream publication like USA Today. Bush violated the terms of the IWR - the invasion was illegal. Can Congress continue to ignore this?

[dennis4868]

7. Just finnish reading....

Mr. Dean's book....a great read and has motivated me to pump more money into the Kerry campaign! Yes, Dean said that Bush violated the very federal law that gave him the conditional authorization to invade Iraq....Where are the repubs from the 1990s who wanted to bring honor and dignity back to the WH?

[indepat]

12. In words of two syllables: Hell yes, the Repuke Congress will continue to

ignore this and all else for it matters not a whit what a partisan of their cloth does or does not do, for it matters not a whit whether what he does is illegal, unconstitutional, inhumane, unjust, or immoral. Really scary stuff for a good case could be made that these people pose the greatest threat to this Republic in its history!

[LuminousX]

8. Holy cow

This is it. He at least has to recant this letter in regards to the 9/11 findings.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and thus was attacked under false pretenses - illegally!

[TSElliott]

9. That section is from Public Law 107-243 which was cited in the letter.

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/sprj.irq.letter /

Public Law 107-243

http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf

If there was anything there that could impeach him don't you think they would have done it already?

[Tellurian]

10. Saddam must be assembling the facts in sequential order for the CIA...

who would know better than Saddam, what has gone on in the ME between himself, Osama and the Bush regime.

[AgadorSparticus]

11. i can't figure it out. why are dems shy of saying the big "I" word?

i just read in an article on yahoo that there is a petition going around to impeach this bastard in office but sen. edward kennedy is a little shy of it. WTH? obviously there must be a reason for this. maybe someone can clue me in. i sure can't figure it out on my own.

p.s. here's the link to that story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040617/ap_on_go_co/kennedy_impeachment_5

[cheezus]

13. Who is Vice President?

that's your answer.

[paulk]

14. Probably because it would be a waste of time

with the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, any attempts at impeachment would have to start with the Republicans. The only way I can see that kind of uprising is if polls start showing that Bush's demise is going to lose them the Congress also - and even then I can't see them going after one of their own.

Also - whether we want to be there or not, we are at war - and it would be very easy to paint an impeachment attempt as unpatriotic. Besides, it would hamstring the government at a time when we, as a nation, can't really afford it. IMHO.

[Terran]

15. I've been saying that for sometime.

Based on *what he wrote to Congress*, the *entire* justification for the war is bullshit. It seems to me he could be impeached for such an obvious lie to Congress.

[mopaul]

16. last year i saw him say that there's NO connection between saddam & 9-11

i saw bush say those very words on my t.v. machine. yet, today, he says there is, and so does dick, even though yesterday the commission says there ain't. go figger

[ElementaryPenguin]

17. I've screamed about this for months. That letter onto itself is proof

Of the fraud perpetrated by BushCo - an impeachable crime - that like everything else - will be ignored by the Tom "the Nazi exterminator"
Delay Repuke majority!

:puke:
:puke:

[Hippo_Tron]

18. All he had to do was say it was authorized under the IWR

I think Rove and Chenney fucked up by letting Bush write the letter himself.

[Mechatanketra]

19. Um -- read it again.

This has cropped up a number of times on DU, and frankly as much as I would dearly dearly dearly love to have that kind of slam dunk to shove in people's faces ... it ain't so.

Not that Bush didn't lie in the letter, but not so obviously; it doesn't quite say what people are taking it to say ("Hey, Congress, I'm goin' ta war with the 9/11 terrists! Yee-haw!")

The thing is, the letter makes two separate statements. First:

{I determine that} reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ...

In other words, "I've figured out we won't be safe if we don't attack Iraq." This is the lie, in and of itself -- since Bush provably lied about every justification he's made to support the thesis expressed here, one can only conclude that he knows his conclusion was fallacious.

{I determine that} acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against {terrorists}, including {the 9/11 perps}.

Read this carefully: this doesn't say "Attacking Iraq is getting the 9/11 perps", it says "Attacking Iraq won't get in the way of getting the 9/11 perps". Remember those predictions floating around that said a war with Iraq would endanger rather than contribute to any "war on terrorism" we thought we were conducting? That's what Bush is addressing here. (Of course, he was wrong, but not provably lying -- in this case, he could just be unconscionably stupid.)



Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[papau]

20. Not a lie-just Stupidity? Action "consistent with" war on 911 terrorists?

seems a lie as much as "I've figured out we won't be safe if we don't attack Iraq." after saying "I didn't say immenent danger - just a danger in the future - and that only a war would adequately protect the national security of the United States "
===========================================================

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

[eaprez]

21. Because there is no Presidential PENIS

in the story. Find a way to weave a torrid tale involving lies and Duby's penis and they will investigate, investigate, investigate - and spend millions of dollars doing so....and make him responsible for abortion clinics and stem cell research in Iraq --- and by God they may even crucify him on the White House Lawn!!!