Grounds for Impeachment?

So, I think it's fair to say that if Bush lied about our reasons for going to war with Iraq, this should be grounds for impeachment. Of course, unlike Clinton's blow-job denial, Bush wasn't under oath and he doesn't face an opposition party with the courage to do anything about it, but let's face it. Many people have died of this war and if Bush deliberately misled us, don't the many thousands of dead people deserve that he at least be impeached, if not removed from office?

Just four days ago the Times of London published a bombshell of a story. This story is about a top secret memo (which you really, really want to read) leaked to them. The date on the memo is July 23, 2002. Here's a little excerpt from that memo (emphasis mine):

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.

Military action inevitable? Our invasion of Iraq didn't begin until March 20, 2003, almost a year after this memo. Bush, of course, was constantly denying that we were committed to this action. This memo, if true, shows that Bush lied. More horrifyingly, while he now claims that our intelligence was faulty, suggesting that our policy was based on bad information, the memo is suggesting that the information was "fixed". Now read that carefully. Note the use of the word "policy." As far as the British were concerned, invading Iraq was already Bush administration policy. Intelligence and facts were being "fixed" to support it.

Now what might be a reasonable response by the British government? I suppose they could claim the memo's a fake. Of course, if it turns out to not be a fake, they're in even bigger trouble if they're caught. Not surprisingly, the government has stated that the memo contains "nothing new." However, in one of the relatively few US media sources to have given this story major attention (it's receiving widespread international attention, though), the Kansas City Star has more interesting information about this:

  • A White House spokesman said they would not comment on leaked British documents.
  • A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official rather than address them (after all, why on Earth would a spokesman have anything to say?)
  • That other official did not return calls.

Maybe I just have my tinfoil hat on, but doesn't anyone want to talk about that document? They should be denying it's true. They're not. They should be claiming that people misunderstand it. They're not. We should be demanding to know what the hell is going on. We're not. We're docile cattle who will moo a little and then go back to chewing our cud. If you care at all about this mess, please copy this post to your own journal or link back to it. There are questions that need to be answered. With all the buzz that bloggers are supposed to be able to have an impact, let's see if we can prod a few people.

Now go read that memo for yourself and remember, this was months before we claim to have finished our intelligence analysis (in October of 2002, as I recall), almost a year before the war and Bush and Blair were vehemently denying that any decisions had been made.

On a local note: somewhat unsurprisingly, our local paper, the Oregonian, appears to have no mention of this story. Of course, this is the same paper that allowed our former governor to refer to his molesting a little girl as "an affair." Journalism isn't their strong suit. Hell, our "liberal media" is more obsessed with the Jacko trial and runaway brides than to do any hard-hitting investigation.

  • Current Mood: pissed off pissed off
I just wonder why if I file a flase police report that at most costs a few thousand dollars and no lives I'm likely to be charged with a crime, but if I send people to war and kill thousands (or hundreds of thousands on both sides) based on falsehoods then it is considered business as usual.
I suspect there's no legs to this story because there's little possibility that there can be any tangible results from it. Any attempt to impeach Bush over this would be easily swatted aside by the Republican majority in both houses.

I think most people are already pretty convinced that Bush (lied/fudged/distorted/slanted/pick-your-word) about the evidence to justify an already decided invasion. And 57 or so percent now believe that the invasion wasn't worth it. But I think the general consensus is that it was bad judgement rather than an impeachable offense.

Impeachment needs to be a last resort to remove a real criminal from office. The remedy for being merely unfit is an election, which in this case failed, regrettably.

That Bush should be given holy hell for his deception and its tragic consequences I fully support. Just not impeachment, not for this.
I don't understand why no one is talking about this. No wait, I understand it, it's just frustrating.

Bush's sworn affidavit stating that he has made a pact in blood with Satan himself to destroy all life on earth wouldn't even make the nightly news at this point.
Rather unrelated, but I find now that I will probably be back in Portland on July 7th or 8th. :) I will have a day or two to kill. Do you work at home?
I am attending the wedding of a close friend on the weekend, but I think I will come a few days early. :) Visiting people on weekdays usually sucks because people get worn out from work.
I rarely read or watch the news this makes me hopelessly behind current events, but I do have a reason. I used to be a news junkie...received the paper everyday watched news a gazillion times a day untill the day I realized that the media is just a marketing tool and is often used to devert our attention from what we should really be focusing is sensationalism and rather annoying at the best of few papers publish actual useful information these days