One Utah

June 10th, 2008 by Richard Warnick

8 Responses to “Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors”

1. cav Says:
   June 10th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

   I’m liking it. Thanks Dennis.

2. Larry Bergan Says:
   June 11th, 2008 at 12:04 am

   Time to revoke the licenses of media organizations that have been entrusted with and given constitutional protection to provide us with the information needed to insure our survival.

   Imagine, if you can, the impeachment articles for Bill Clinton going completely unnoticed by the media…

   …I didn’t think so.

   Once again,Thank you Dennis! And thank you Richard!

3. Bob S. Says:
   June 16th, 2008 at 9:00 am

   Interesting read.

   
   Bush never lied to us about Iraq
   The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

   Some select quotes from the article

   …attacking the Bush administration’s case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate’s 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: “We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true.” On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that “the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress.”
   
   Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

   In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

   Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House “manipulation” — that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction — administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

   Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

   This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats’ lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

   James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

4. Richard Warnick Says:
   June 16th, 2008 at 9:24 am

   Oh, come on. Rockefeller’s Intelligence Committee report was watered down. Republicans tried so hard to keep the Phase II report from coming out at all, they forced compromises. For example, there was no mention of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which ran the Bush administration’s effort to market aggressive war. It was WHIG’s Michael Gerson who coined the slogan, “the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud.”

   And what about this report?

   On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction…

5. Albert O. Says:
   June 16th, 2008 at 11:11 am

   So disappointing! For a while, it appeared as though some solid Libertarian folks - e.g., jd and Bob S. - had come to 1U, bringing with them substantive insight on issues confronting the nation. Turns out these guys are just red repug 29%rs, who will strain all credibility to continue the apologist rhetoric for the Bush administration.

6. Bob S. Says:
   June 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am

   Albert,

   Don’t let the plank in your eye get in the way when you are accusing others of having a splinter in there eye.

   The amount Bush Derangement Syndrome displayed is immense, I pointed this out in my posts and I’m called names. Not every ill or problem in the past 7 years has been the fault of the current administration, but that is rarely heard on this site.

   Intelligence analysis is not an exact science, value judgments have to be made on the worth, credibility and the sources’ motivations. Is it possible that Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, might have a reason to lie? Especially given the timeline and imminent invasion, yes it is possible.

   When there are conflicting sources, it is not a breech of the law to go with the one that confirms existing viewpoints. How can so many over look the fact that Saddam deliberately tried to convince the world that he did have WMD’s?
   Didn’t the information given by the other source match previous reports. The was a large amount of chemical and biological stock that was unaccounted for, Saddam’s own reports confirmed that. Would you trust someone who has already used WMD to report honestly if the weapons had been disposed of or not? I wouldn’t.

   This is the exact thing I was saying earlier, why fight this fight when Congress and the President are infringing on our rights? What it looks like is that the people at 1Utah care more about bringing Bush down than they do about fighting for their rights.

7. Albert O. Says:
   June 16th, 2008 at 11:35 am

   Bob S. says:

   When there are conflicting sources, it is not a breech of the law to go with the one that confirms existing viewpoints.

   This is the mindset that kills me about the 29%ers. We are not talking about a bet at Vegas, Bob, we are talking about the lives of US service persons, including your own son.

8. Richard Warnick Says:
   June 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am

   Bob, unaccounted-for stocks and usable weapons systems are two very different propositions. We were not told that the United States had to invade in Iraq in 2003 to track down old, surplus chemical stockpiles. We were told that Saddam Hussein’s regime represented an immediate threat to U.S. national security.

   The Bush administration knew that it would be hard to get majority support for a war of choice (a polite term for “war of aggression”) because it’s against international law. What to do? Inflate the threat.

Leave a Reply

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

Quicktags:

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

One Utah uses Modern — designed by Ulf Pettersson and powered by WordPress.