Kerry to Call for IMPEACHMENT

Looks like things could get very interesting shortly.

John Kerry to call for impeachment of George Bush
6/4/2005

John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported last month by the London Times. The memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair allegedly said that President Bush’s administration “fixed” intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war.

The Downing Street Memo is the leaked secret British document that details the minutes of a 2002 meeting between top-level British and American government officials. The memo states that George Bush “was determined” to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

So far neither government has disputed the accuracy of the memo.

The memo caused an uproar in Britain and made a significant impact in the British national elections, but has recieved little attention in American news.

The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush’s impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore’s website and the Democratic Underground.

Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush’s impeachment to Congress, on Monday.

Kerry said of the memo: “When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think it’s a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it’s amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It’s not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that.”

He questioned Americans’ understanding of the war and the idea that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, “Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?”

House Representative John Conyers has written to the President regarding the memo:

“…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.”

There is a growing movement on the internet and in Congress for a “Resolution of Inquiry” into issues surrounding the planning and execution of the Iraq war, especially in regard to the Administration’s handling of intelligence.

John Dean, a key Watergate figure, wrote in a June 2003 column for a legal website, that, “To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked… Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a ‘high crime’ under the Constitution’s impeachment clause.”

However, in practical terms impeachment in the U.S. Senate requires a 2/3 majority for conviction, which is unlikely given that 55 out of 100 Senators are Republican.

When asked about the Downing Street Memo on May 23, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "If anyone wants to know how the intelligence was used by the administration, all they have to do is go back and look at all the public comments over the course of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, and that’s all very public information. Everybody who was there could see how we used that intelligence.

“And in terms of the intelligence, it was wrong, and we are taking steps to correct that and make sure that in the future we have the best possible intelligence, because it’s critical in this post-September 11th age, that the executive branch has the best intelligence possible.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8681

The Downing Street Memo

Nader, Moore, Al Jazeera.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

I love the left.

If it can be undeniably proven that intelligence was falsified in order to justify a declaration of war, with the full knowledge and consent of the President, impeachment proceedings would certainly be in order.

I find it hard to believe that such a case could be made though, even if true. The only knowledge I have of the “Downing Street Memo” is from second and third-hand sources. Anyone know exactly what it says?

[quote]doogie wrote:
Nader, Moore, Al Jazeera.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

I love the left.[/quote]

While completely ignoring the evidence…

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Look at Nader, Moore, Al Jazeera, they lied us into a $300 billion plus war I guess. Hey anybody seen bin Laden? How bout those WMD’s.

At least YOU didn’t die in the war.

I love the right.

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
If it can be undeniably proven that intelligence was falsified in order to justify a declaration of war, with the full knowledge and consent of the President, impeachment proceedings would certainly be in order.

I find it hard to believe that such a case could be made though, even if true. The only knowledge I have of the “Downing Street Memo” is from second and third-hand sources. Anyone know exactly what it says?[/quote]

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)

It’s just too bad that the majority of Congress is Republican. Bush could possibly get impeached but definately not found guilty.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Look at Nader, Moore, Al Jazeera, they lied us into a $300 billion plus war I guess.[/quote]

So you are just hung up on the money? What price do you put on people’s freedom?

[quote]doogie wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Look at Nader, Moore, Al Jazeera, they lied us into a $300 billion plus war I guess.

So you are just hung up on the money? What price do you put on people’s freedom?
[/quote]

Why did you leave out this quote from the same post?:

What price do YOU put on our own soldier’s lives?

Much has been made about the comment in the memo: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” What this statement means exactly is not entirely clear. Bush critics take it to mean that evidence was being manufactured to fit the WMD hypothesis, but that’s not actually what it says. If you understand British idiom, what it is much more likely to mean, is that facts and intelligence were being assembled to be attached to and support the policy. ‘Fixed’ being used not in the sense of ‘repaired’ but in the sense of ‘attached to’. This doesn’t mean that the evidence was being created or selected, but that it was being gathered and lined up in support of the administrations actions, a reasonable and relatively innocuous activity.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/24/111000.php

I find it so interesting that the urge to impeach Bush comes at the same time Deep Throat came out of the closet. Also wouldn’t it look better if somebody other then the looser of the election was to put out the idea of impeachment?

I did my time in the reserves. I admit I never saw even a hint of action, but when I signed up I knew there was a chance I would.

I respect our men and women in uniform enough to assume they all knew the risk they were taking when they signed on the line. I don’t act as if they are victims of anything. I don’t look down on them and think they were too uneducated to know what they were volunteering for.

I think each and every American that has died in Iraq has given their life to protect us. I do believe that terrorists are so pre-occupied in Iraq that we are safer here. I do believe that a free and democratic Iraq will be a catalyst to a free middle-East that will breed fewer and fewer terrorists in the years to come. I do believe that Sadam would have aided anyone who was hoping to do us harm.

I don’t look at the money we have spent on the war to decide whether or not it was morally right.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I find it so interesting that the urge to impeach Bush comes at the same time Deep Throat came out of the closet. Also wouldn’t it look better if somebody other then the looser of the election was to put out the idea of impeachment? [/quote]

I find it even more interesting that this Blog admits that the reason to invade Iraq sold to the American public was in fact WMD’s and not the heroic effort to free the people. On this board, many have claimed that this was not the case…as if they missed every news blurb released after 9/11.

[quote]
One of the key sections in the memo explains the reason for the invasion:

  "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."

Clearly the intention was to effect regime change, but that wasn’t seen as sufficient public justification for the invasion, desirable though it might be. So they went looking for transgressions which could be used as a just cause for invasion. The point is that in a situation like Saddam’s Iraq regime change was enormously desirable and should have been sufficient justification, but the Attorney General argued that it wasn’t a strong enough position to act on so they needed something more.

They looked at the options and came up with the conclusion that the best route was to goad Saddam into violating UN sanctions and resolutions. The memo says:

  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.

This clearly shows that WMDs were to be used as a wedge to get the UN inspections started again so that Saddam would get uncooperative create a justification for military action. But what it also makes clear - and which the leftist press is conveniently ignoring - is that the administration was absolutely convinced there were WMDs in Iraq. Perhaps not as many WMDs as several other terrorist regimes in the ‘axis of evil’, but certainly enough to justify military action.

What’s also clear from the memo is that in full awareness of exactly what the Bush administration had in mind, the British government though that the actions taken against Iraq were entirely justifiable, not because of WMDs, but for myriad other reasons which made Saddam an appropriate target for an effort to solve some of the problems in the Middle East.[/quote]

As far as this memo, I haven’t read it and, apprently, neither has anyone else. To dimiss it so readily as if it is baseless seems a little odd. Why a sudden push from the right to discredit it instead of to find out if it is true or not? This blog basically hinges this effort on the use of the word “fixed” by claiming it is simply British terminology for the word “attached”. I mean, how stupid would it be to base a desire for impeachment on only one word?

The statement is actually, “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. That doesn’t sound anything like “ATTACHED” as related to an inoccent compiling of data.

"He questioned Americans’ understanding of the war and the idea that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, “Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?” "

When i look at the average bush-voter i wonder why civilization doesnt collapse.

[quote]doogie wrote:
I respect our men and women in uniform enough to assume they all knew the risk they were taking when they signed on the line. I don’t act as if they are victims of anything. [/quote]

And I expect a president to consider the lives of those same men and women and to apply their actions justly. If that is in question, it needs to be looked into…otherwise, many lives could have been lost under false pretenses. Why would you ignore that? Not one soldier signed up for their lives to be used as worthless cannon fodder or to meet the needs of a purely political agenda. This needs to be investigated. If it is bullshit, then so be it…but to downplay it or ignore it?

Again, what are the lives of those soldiers worth?

When I look at the average democrat voter all I can think of is “looser”. They can spell their name exactly the way Clinton does: B oy I L ove L oosing-election after election!
No one put it better than the King of Bodybuilding himself…“why would I want to work with loosers?”

Montrosefan

I agree with Professor X and Montrosefan.
It doesn’t need to be called BS just yet. Let the facts come out and then lets see. Soldiers lives are NOT fodder for cannon fire, I agree. I’m an Air Force Officer myself, so I am not immune.

It is interesting though, I have talked to more than 10 Bush voters this year and NONE of them have had the idea that Saddam was behind 911 or that our government SAID that he was either. I don’t know where they get this “77” percent crapola.

I have talked to people from the so called “religous right” and people from the “irreligous left” and none of them thought Saddam participated in 911. Again, where do these people get their “facts” from?

Donnie…

Being from Australia Im may be ignorant but I must ask this question.

Is montrosefan an idiot or is there some colloquial term of ‘loser’ that is pronounced or spelled ‘looser’? Is this a reference to something that I am unaware of?

Can’t speak for Montrosefan, but I doubt real T-men on this here forum worry that much about an extra voowel here and there!

Try posting on the metrosexual thread mate…

The Downing Street memo was a link on these forums a short time ago and after reading it, I saw no ‘conclusive’ evidence of the big fix.

As Mage also reported the term fixed has a slightly different conotation in England’s English as opposed to American.

While it may cast some suspicion on the current administration–which has already been correctly argued by RSU, Moriarty, and others it certainly would not come close to qualifying for impeachment.

Kerry–your 15 minutes are up sir. Please take a seat in the back of the DNC bus. Any further questions–please refer to your driver-Hillary. Have a nice day.

It has become a trend! DEMOCRATS DO NOT LOSE WELL!

Al Gore was crisscrossing the country a few years ago (after losing to Bush) attacking the President on every issue which seemed to exist. Remember his beard and large stomach days? It was quite a show.

Now Kerry is going to call for Bush’s impeachment. Do they think that this is a good way to energize their base?

They have had some very bad ideas in the past (Dean as Chairman). However, this might just be the show stopper of bad ideas! Instead of trying to bring the country together and show the people what great ideas that they have, thus crating a larger base they are going to alienate all but the fringe left, who will eat this up.

The losing candidate calling for the impeachment of the guy he just lost to. I love it!

Yea…keep it coming! :slight_smile:

By the way

RSU

If you are out there.

That book w/r/t/ the administration and its predisposed mission towards Iraq has been interesting. I think Don R. will have an interesting memoir when this is over.

Expect a deathbed bombshell on how he was behind much of this Iraq situation.

You’re starting to turn me. Good stuff