Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Bush Administration & Impeachment & the False Statement Statute

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:13 AM
Original message
The Bush Administration & Impeachment & the False Statement Statute
Edited on Thu Jun-16-05 11:27 AM by Stand and Fight
There are some who have charged that even if it was proven that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq, there are no legal consequences for him or other administration officials having done so. Furthermore, those very same individuals have been given over to claiming that we all knew that the intelligence was being fixed, so what difference do the Downing Street minutes make? Their reasoning is that despite Bush’s State of the Union addresses in 2002 and 2003, he did not knowingly mislead the United States Congress and it’s citizens. They would even go so far as to tell you that it was a result of the “bad intelligence” that Bush received from the CIA and FBI that led him and other administration officials to make false statements. In their minds, in their warped reality, the Bush administration is therefore not guilty, and even if they had lied there is no legal grounds for prosecution.

They could not be more wrong. I am here to tell you today that there is a law that makes it a crime for any member of the legislative, judicial, or executive branch of our government to give false statements or comment fraud! There are United States laws that make it possible to hold Bush and his administration accountable for their having mislead the American people and Congress. Before I site the specific laws, allow me to list some of the lies of the Bush administration. Some of the top ten are as follows (Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/16274):

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."
LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."
LIE #3: "We believe has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
LIE #4: " solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.
FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.
FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?
LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.
FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.
LIE #9: "We know where are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.
FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.


As mentioned earlier, there are laws that directly prohibit members of the judicial, legislative, or executive branches from lying. The law is covered under United States Codes. Specifically, the law relates to both fraud and false statements. United States Code, Title 18, Section 1001 (a.k.a., the False Statements Statute, reads as follows (Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=1001):

Section 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or
counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the
legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to -
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a
matter related to the procurement of property or services,
personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a
document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to
the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the
authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.


Why does this matter? If it matters, why is it that this issue has not come up before? I believe that this matters because of the resent revelations concerning the Downing Street minutes. In the past when people have charged that this administration LIED to the American people, there was supposedly no concrete evidence to back up their statements. However, the DSM(s) are the official minutes of British meetings in the office of Tony Blair. Furthermore, they are connected with British intelligence, and in light of recent Deep Throat revelations this carries even more weight.

Why should we be concerned with this code specifically? The code sited above is important because it sites a MISDEMEANOR and due to the deaths of our service men and women in this illegal war, one could conclude that the lies also constitute HIGH CRIMES. Why is this important? Let us look at Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution for that answer (Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/index.html):

Section 4.
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.



Based upon United States Code, Title 18, Section 1001, and Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, George W. Bush and his administration have clearly committed misdemeanors. I would even go so far as to say that they have committed high crimes and TREASON due to the rising death tolls in Iraq of both U.S. service members and citizens of Iraq.

As of this writing, 1714 of our service members have died, and an estimated 14,000 or more have been disabled for life. An unknown excessive number of Iraqis have died as a result of this administration’s lies. It is not the numbers that matter when it comes to morality, for morality cannot be weighted based upon the such things. The fact that anyone – be they American soldier or Iraq – had to die because of lies is an inexcusable and grievous offense. It is a stain upon the reputation of this once good nation of hope and democracy and freedom. Every time that someone else dies in Iraq our reputation is further damaged.

Today (16 June 2005) the honorable Representative John Conyers, of Michigan, shall hold a forum on the Downing Street Minutes. It is my most ardent belief that Mr. Conyers and company know that the only way this president and his administration can be held accountable is if there is irrefutable proof that they mislead this nation’s Congress and citizens.

There is a lot of gravity in the memo, but what is most egregious are the words, “the facts were being fixed around the policy.” This should become the rallying cry of all who truly value what it meant to be American, what it meant to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. This should become the rallying cry of all those who truly support the troops, not by pretentious flag waving, but threw their words and actions. George W. Bush and his administration are not the troops, and they must not be allowed to be representative of America.

If this is not a case for impeachment, then there never was one in the United States of America’s history. This president and his administration have lied to the American people (to include Congress) again and again. They must be held accountable for their actions, and made to answer to the law if we are to redeem our national pride and international reputation.

If we fail, if we allow the Neo-Con and the naysayer, to keep us down, then we are just as complacent as the German citizens in World War II who claimed they knew nothing or atrocties or were simply following orders. In this age of information, no one has any reason to remain ignorant of the actions of their government. We have it within our power – as is evidenced by the 540,000+ signatures to Representative John Conyers letter to Bush. Friends, we must continue forward and overcome the obstacles in our path. Bush and his executioners must be held accountable. Pray, we are not willing accomplices through inaction and silence. We must achieve redemption, less we be complacent in crimes against humanity.

We have the necessary tools at our disposal, now have we the strength to wield them against the beast?

Impeach.
Indict.
Imprison.

S&F
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Recommended. Excellent post, S&F!
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. We, the People have been lied to
and as such, a Grand Jury should be convened and those guilty of fraud should be brought to justice, then sent stand before the ICC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Call me Deacon Blues Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. We need to keep repeating this
Nominated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
39. Bang them over the head with it.... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Those who continue to defend this regime are shameful and,...
,...at this point, I accuse them of being co-conspirators because they continue to prop up the very men who betrayed the entire nation and her people.

Shame on them, all of them!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psychmd Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
5. Very well stated
Thank you for taking the time to describe in detail why we must impeach this entire administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Welcome to DU!
And I second your thanks for this post. In fact, some of those lies don't even rely on the DSM for confirmation. I'm thinking in particular of Rummy and his "we know where they are". Um, no, maybe at best you THOUGHT MAYBE you knew where they were, but you didn't KNOW. So, that's a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. Thank you...
Welcome to DU! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. Hi Psychmd!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
6. you are correct-- impeachment is not enough....
Impeach. Indict. Imprison. I want that lying POS smirkboy and all his cronies to spent the rest of their lives in orange jumpsuits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Impeach. Indict. Imprison.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Ysolde Donating Member (368 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
7. Great post!
We The People must push this with every media outlet that we can. I know the MSM is merely a lapdog for this administration, but if the outcry is loud enough, even they must report the lies.

Our Democratic representatives need to be hounding this one too, and us, them.

Bush lied. Thousands died. Impeach now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Absolutely.
We cannot allow these crimes to go unpunished. What this administration has done is inexcusable. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
8. did the guy from the UN say that Bush was not correct?
We keep hearing from Rush & his ilk that everybody thought Saddam had WMD, even the French. Were there any voices in the wilderness that disagreed with Bush about Iraq on whether they had WMD? I know some countries figured he had some, just that it was not worth it to go to war over...

however, who out there actually said, "no, Saddam does not have WMD" - anybody besides that guy from the IAEA (Mohammed El Baradi, or something like that?)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. Honestly, I do not know.
Perhaps you should post a thread on this matter, and the DU researchers can set to work on the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kota Donating Member (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. Excellent post. Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. Impeach YES. Resignations not allowed. Tried for murder in the World Court
This is our goal.

It does not matter who commits these crimes - these are crimes against humanity. The World Court must convict these bastards to show the world that no country, or a few people, or a person is permitted to commit atrocities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jose Diablo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. "No resignations allowed"
Edited on Thu Jun-16-05 11:56 AM by Jose Diablo
Correct, else Bu$h will just issue pardons and these neocon will resurface later.

Edit: Removed a expletive adjective describing the neocons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
12. Nominated
Great writing and factfinding. This is the sort of article that we should be covering the nation with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carla in Ca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
13. Great post!
And remember Condi's statement a few weeks ago?
"This war (Iraq) came to us".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. Precisely.
That, in and of itself, is yet another lie from this administration. Actually, it is more of a distortion of the truth than an outright lie, but I'm sure you get the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carla in Ca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. You are too kind
Edited on Thu Jun-16-05 02:05 PM by Carla in Ca
I tried to find the video of her 2002 statement regarding Iraq but I couldn't find it. Oh well, it still adds to incompetence.:hi:

Edit:

I'm watching the hearings and they just showed her video saying he had no weapons, not a threat.
A lie is a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. e-mailed, printed out, nominated and kicked!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senior citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
20. Can people who were convicted of lying to Congress

and then pardoned (Watergate), be pardoned again when they are once more convicted of lying to Congress? Did their blanket pardons cover anything they might do in the future? Can the President pardon himself? Will the Diebold-Puke gang force the next President to pardon this one as a condition of getting elected (and, of course, as a condition of not being assassinated)?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. No answer all of your questions...
Can people who were convicted of lying to Congress and then pardoned (Watergate), be pardoned again when they are once more convicted of lying to Congress?
If I am understanding your question correctly, the answer is a an unfortunate "yes". Being pardoned by the president only covers PAST offenses, and if an individual commits another offense, they can be pardoned by the Chief Executive.

Did their blanket pardons cover anything they might do in the future?
No. See the response to your question above, friend.

Can the President pardon himself?
No, the president cannot pardon himself if he is convicted of a crime. That would make him above the law, and in a legal sense no-one is above the law.

Will the Diebold-Puke gang force the next President to pardon this one as a condition of getting elected (and, of course, as a condition of not being assassinated)?
I am not psychic, so in all fairness I cannot answer this speculative question either way.

I hope these answers were beneficial to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-17-05 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #20
41. Impeachment is NOT Pardonable
It's in the constitution.

No President can pardon any president who has been impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tallahasseedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
22. Fabulous research. Send it to everyone you know.
Lets get this ball rolling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
23. As usual, it comes down to what did they know and when did they know it
If it can be shown that bush was told officially that the claims he was making/about to make were false and he made them anyway, I believe people are investigating this now, he will be impeached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I concur.
This is why it is crucial that we get this in the news. I believe that people in the intelligence community will come forward once they believe it is safe to do so. It is well reported that Bush had been told to NOT use the so-called Niger uranium information by former FBI director, George Tenet, but he decided to do so anyway. The problem is getting Tenet or anyone else to fess up to this -- I think it can be done. However, it will be one hell of a struggle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
28. Excellent post!
www.recallthecongress.com

Recall the Congress!

Smash the PNAC!

Impeach Bush and Cheney!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savannahana Donating Member (491 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
30. "Impeach. Indict. Imprison." nominated & disseminated!
thank you, Stand and Fight

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. Yes...
Please send this out to EVERYONE you know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dxstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
31. Kick-nom...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
32. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. nothing more to say .... they lied and many people died
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
34. treason (definition)
n 1: a crime that undermines the offender's government

2: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

3: an act of deliberate betrayal

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 08:16 PM
Response to Original message
35. I will not let this die.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
37. Were there any voices in the wilderness?
Asked in this thread. Did anybody tell the Bush administration that there were no WMDs?

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak


JANUARY, 2002 – TENET DOES NOT MENTION IRAQ IN NUCLEAR THREAT REPORT: "In CIA Director George Tenet's January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea."

FEBRUARY 6, 2002 – CIA SAYS IRAQ HAS NOT PROVIDED WMD TO TERRORISTS: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups, according to several American intelligence officials."

APRIL 15, 2002 – WOLFOWITZ ANGERED AT CIA FOR NOT UNDERMINING U.N. REPORT: After receiving a CIA report that concluded that Hans Blix had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants "fully within the parameters he could operate" when Blix was head of the international agency responsible for these inspections prior to the Gulf War, a report indicated that "Wolfowitz ‘hit the ceiling’ because the CIA failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program."

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED: "In the late summer of 2002, Sen. Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes."

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions."

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence."

OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa."

OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium.


Much more with references

And don't forget Colin Powell, 2/24/01:

(Original link: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm
is not working)

We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. (Saddam) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. A Most Excellent Post
Thank you so much for researching and sharing this information with us.

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-05 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
40. Impeachment party anyone?
Bring that dragon up to the podium, bout time he got slayed!

5 years, huh? I was thinking 3 at Gitmo, but 5 is better. That outta slay him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC