frontpaged at My Left Wing
UPDATE: Well, hell. I thought I had things laid out pretty solid, but apparently not. Ah well, I gave it a shot. Maybe someone else could do better.
It was with a great sense of relief that I read
this highly recommended diary of a few days ago which stated in part that:
By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.
The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him." [emphasis ad
ded by me--Raybin]
Well...did he or didn't he? Specifically, I want to focus on "he." What did President Bush actually say and how does that square with the truth? So let's put aside all of Dick Cheney's reassurances, all of Donald Rumsfeld's "east, west, south, and north somewhat" comments, all of Condi Rice's NYT Op-Eds and all of Colin Powell's 11th grade PowerPoint presentations. What did the man with whom the buck is supposed to stop say and were any of those lies?
In my opinion, there are two instances above all others where clear contrasts can be made between what Bush claimed and what reality actually demonstrates.
Follow, me if you will, back to the heady days of January 2003, with the war drums really starting to beat and the President preparing his State of the Union address. It was well known in advance that he would use the speech to lay out his case for military action against Saddam Hussein.
Taken from the official transcript as published by the Washington Post we see these remarks Mr. Bush made in the course of the evening:
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.
Pretty solid, it would seem. Except it does not have the virtue of truthfulness. In other words, a lie.
From an article by Julian Borger in The Guardian of September 18, 2004:
The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely for use in assassinations.
A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.
It also appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its illegal weapons programmes if UN sanctions were lifted.
Let's do a quick midpoint review:
- In laying out his case for war with Iraq in the 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush enumerated several instances of weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's possession and made it clear this could not be tolerated.
- After the war, it was found that such claims were utterly and demonstrably false
Ergo, we arrive at...
3) President Bush lied about reasons for the Iraq war.
But we're not through yet! Another, perhaps even stronger, point remains to be made.
One of the main points of the October 2002 Congressional resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to use force in Iraq was that, in the event he decided to use force against Saddam Hussein, he must send a report to Congress notifying them of his decision and listing his given reasons for it.
I offer here, straight from the official White House website, the full text of that note:
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
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
I wish to call your specific attention, if I may, to section 2 of the note. I will repeat it, highlighting the significant phrases:
(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.
My friends, this is no mere parsing of semantics. Acting in accordance with law, in an official report to Congress, Geroge Bush attached his name to a document which clearly states that the war in Iraq was initiated, in part, as a retaliatory strike against the events of September 11, 2001. I don't think it too much of a stretch to declare that George Bush was thus officially declaring Saddam Hussein and the nation of Iraq were partly to blame for those attacks.
I'll repeat: In the official notification to the United States Congress, George Bush declared that one of the reasons he was initiating military action in Iraq was because he was purusing his program of striking all nations or persons involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In other words, Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
That note was delivered on March 18, 2003. Exactly 6 months to the day later, President Bush changed his tune. On September 18, 2003, the BBC website ran an article with the following headline:
BUSH REJECTS SADDAM 9/11 LINK
The article goes on to state that:
US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
...
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
Once again, let's review:
- Fulfilling his obligation to Congress, President Bush informed its members that the Iraq war was being launched because of Saddam Hussein's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
- Six months later, Mr. Bush personally declared for the record that there was absolutely no credible link between Saddam and the events of 9/11.
Ergo...
3) President Bush lied about his reasons for the Iraq war.
Taking this exercise in logic to its final step and going all the way back to the opening of this diary, we find that:
- 50 percent of Americans believe George Bush should be impeached if he lied about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
- I have just demonstrated that on two major occasions, President Bush lied about his reasons for going to war with Iraq.
Ergo...
3) It is the will of the American people that Congress fulfill its constitutional duty and impeach President George W. Bush.
So, to wind up this little missive to that 50 percent, allow me to say that I've given you what you've asked for...now contact your U.S. senators and representatives and demand they honor their obligation to you, their constituents, by going ahead with the proceedings.