YEAH BABY - SMELL THE IMPEACHMENT IN THE AIR!

[semiotic_pirate]

Yep, came to most of those conclusions on my own over the course of the
Bush reign. Hrm, rich from OIL guy who grinds all of the companies he's
ever touched into the ground, constantly getting financially bailed out
by his Bin Laden cronies... Who pushed for there to be electronic voting
machines that couldn't be monitored let alone audited... who is known to
have gotten out of other criminal escapade/scrapes, a guy who makes
himself appear to be the fool to get past all those warning bells that
start going off when you realize what he's actually saying... OH - and
don't forget that list of fascist state behaviorisms that he is starting
to model his actions (and government policy) after. GAH!

Impeachment Time:
'Facts Were Fixed.' 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, "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.

chronocidal for posting this first article">

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 snotty, 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 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 today, 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 causus 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 ...nada, bubkiss, 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 not 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.

If you haven't read Greg Palast's book The Best Democracy Money Can
Buy, I suggest you do. Try to get the 2004 post-election edition.



BUT WAIT - IT GETS BETTER!

Title: IMPEACHMENT BILL AGAINST RUMSFELD FILED IN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

On May 6, 2004, a bill was introduced in the United States House of Representatives to impeach Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for "high crimes and misdemeanors". This impeachment bill is "H. RES. 629" and its allegations prove much of what Cutting Edge Ministries has been teaching for the past several years, i.e., since 9/11 and since the build-up to invade Iraq began in earnest. Since all Congressmen have access to "Top Secret" material on a daily basis, the fact that these Impeachment Articles so closely parallels Cutting Edge teachings is very significant.

Let us now examine this Bill of Impeachment against Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Article by Article.

PREAMBLE

"RESOLUTION: Impeaching Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense.

Resolved, That Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article I

"Donald Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, urged and oversaw the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false premise that the United States was in imminent danger of attack from weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States."

Immediately, we can see that this bill seems designed to limit the level of damage to the Secretary of Defense, thus protecting President Bush. As we have stated on many occasions, one of the responsibilities of any administration official is to insulate the President from harm on any issue. Thus, we witnessed Oliver North taking full responsibility for the Iran/Contra Affair, thus sealing off President Reagan from any further implication concerning this most unconstitutional plan! North walked into Congress to testify, outfitted in full Marine Corps Dress Uniform, wearing all his medals. North's demeanor during the entire testimony was that of a well-disciplined, knowledgeable Marine Corps officer. His testimony sparkled so wonderfully that President Reagan was spared any of the "political dirt" kicked up by Iran/Contra. Before his testimony, Democrats were completely positive they had the scandal which would bring Reagan down.

Today, President Bush is facing a wartime scandal far graver than Iran/Contra. His failed war against Iraq is clearly coming down upon his head; the torture and sexual degradation portion of the scandal is actually not the most damaging to American interests in the Middle East and throughout the world. Our inability to secure a lasting, stable peace, our killing of civilians and our desecration of Islamic mosques are far, far more serious to regional stability and world peace.

Note that the Article I Bill of Impeachment "begins at the beginning", with the buildup to war, beginning in mid-2002. This bill alleges two "high crimes and misdemeanors" worthy of removing Rumsfeld from office. They are:

1. That Rumsfeld "urged and oversaw the preemptive invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false premise that the United States was in imminent danger of attack from weapons of mass destruction."

2. Rumsfeld propagated the lie that "Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attack against the United States."

and more... continues on at http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1922.cfm with commentaries and analysis.

AND YES - THE ORIGINAL LONDON TIMES ARTICLE THAT STARTED THE FIRESTORM!!
aka: The Secret Downing Street Memo

May 01, 2005

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


And: I love how the Daily Kos covered the story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/2/16258/65970

Creating Reasons to Go to War
by Congressman John Conyers
Mon May 2nd, 2005 at 13:02:58 PDT

Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers. The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so.

The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal. Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war.


Diaries :: Congressman John Conyers's diary :: :: Trackback ::
The document itself is revealing as it indicates that "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." This is the British government proclaiming foreknowledge of the manipulation of intelligence many of us have alleged for some time.

It also quotes the British Foreign Secretary as stating about the case for war: "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 should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride. To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it:

May ___, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "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."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Comments

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

It's really hard to impeach someone whose party controls the House, Senate, Supreme Court... who has strong buisness ties, and whose party's own ethics call for 'closed house' behavior on this sort of thing.

Maybe if he was a Democrat he could be impeached by his own party... but it seems very unlikely at the present.

The most likely outcome of all of this... a conservative leader in Brittain.
(And that, thankfully, isn't going to happen.)