George McGovern 'Urges' Bush Impeachment

[Pabster]

Story here.

McGovern is entitled to his opinion. But I have to disagree vehemently with many of his assertions. You could, in fact, take several of his lines verbatim and attribute them to posters on this very forum. "Bush lied!" et al.

There is no evidence to support the accusations. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. So for all the hot air coming from the hard left (of which McGovern sits smack dab) it amounts to nothing credible.

 

[woodie1]

How could George (I carried one State) McGovern be wrong on anything.

 

[nageov3t]

a year of President Cheney? no thanks.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: loki8481
a year of President Cheney? no thanks.

The puppet and puppet master. You can guess which is which. I'll take impeachment of bush as long as they take cheney too. What a brilliant tandem though. One is so fucked up, that impeaching him would just bring the diabolical mastermind of it all to the highest position of power. I say we have no choice but to either impeach both, or wait till the end of their term then bring charges.

 

[Icepick]

Agreed. It is time for Bush to be impeached. George Bush and Dick Cheney really should be held accountable for their actions.

 

[Jaskalas]

There?s a odd line here. In his article he all but directly calls Bush a genuine danger to this nation, then the last paragraph begins as such:

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger

Be on the lookout for an 85 year old suicide bomber?

 

[GoPackGo]

In an election year? with Bush down to a year in office? They wont waste the time or the effort.

Dumbest idea ever at this point.

 

[IGBT]

..who care what Mr.Castrati has to say.

 

[fskimospy]

You guys are missing his point. From a political standpoint impeachment would be retarded, yes. From a health of the country standpoint it might be a good thing though. I mean it's important to show future executives that they can't get away with this level of lawlessness without consequences.

As far as the 'Bush lied' thing, that's just one black mark within a sea of black marks. Impeachment is far more justified on the warrantless wiretapping or torture grounds.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys are missing his point. From a political standpoint impeachment would be retarded, yes. From a health of the country standpoint it might be a good thing though. I mean it's important to show future executives that they can't get away with this level of lawlessness without consequences.

As far as the 'Bush lied' thing, that's just one black mark within a sea of black marks. Impeachment is far more justified on the warrantless wiretapping or torture grounds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that impeachment and conviction would make sense now, but in terms of showing future executives that lawlessness will not be tolerated, jailing them after their term runs out would be a good second best.

There may be a certain torture suffered by GWB&Cheney post Presidential term to see their public image go from bad to terrible as the evidence of their illegal deeds starts to surface, then the talk of criminal indictment will start and all the debate from impassioned defenders who diminish as new evidence comes in, and it may be a final relief from limbo, when their secret service agents are handed that warrant for their arrest. Then the show trial where all their lies they thought they would get away with are played back with charts and graph showing the time lines. Followed by the unanimous conviction dashing all final hopes. And last of all that final click as the cell door swings shut.

There is somewhat of a twist the knife irony in such a scenario that may prove quite educational for all.

 

[Engineer]

If Cheney were included also, then why not. If not, just kick the bastards to the curb at the end of the year.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Engineer
If Cheney were included also, then why not. If not, just kick the bastards to the curb at the end of the year.

Certainly Cheney would be included, but his health is not good and death may cheat his hangman. But GWB is in excellent health and he therefore might have a long life to look forward to behind bars.

 

[GrGr]

H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment Against Dick Cheney (reintroduced on Nov. 6, 2007, as H Res 799), is sponsored by the following Members of Congress: Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady, Tammy Baldwin, Donald Payne, Steve Cohen, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Ed Towns, Diane Watson, Danny Davis, Raul Grijalva, Gwen Moore. Please thank them and encourage them to whip their colleagues. Robert Wexler, Tammy Baldwin, and Luis Gutierrez are urging the initiation of hearings and are joined in this by Anthony Weiner. Mike Michaud has written to Chairman Conyers calling for Cheney impeachment hearings.

link

------------------

Cheney is closer to impeachment at this point.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

McGovern is entitled to his opinion. But I have to disagree vehemently with many of his assertions. You could, in fact, take several of his lines verbatim and attribute them to posters on this very forum. "Bush lied!" et al.

McGovern is entitled to his opinion, and HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

There is no evidence to support the accusations. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. So for all the hot air coming from the hard left (of which McGovern sits smack dab) it amounts to nothing credible.

No evidence? Either you're joking, or your brain dead. From the Washington Post article at your link, which you FAILED to quote... for obvious reasons: :roll:

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

McGovern was a little more polite than I am in stating it, but those are some of the exact same things I and others have been posting, with links and documentation, for years. The Bushwhackos have committed the gravest of criminal offenses against the American people, our Constitution and the world. They've been caught up to the top of their lying skulls about WMD's, domestic spying on American citizens, torture, screaming threats of WW III with Iran over a nuclear program that doesn't exist and obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence of crimes by the CIA.

I'll name five general areas of crimes. Since you were dumb enough to post a setup that demands proof... Congratulations. Your bullshit lying just won you a coveted Harvey Macro Award.

1. TREASON

2. MURDER

3. LYING TO CONGRESS

4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

5. WAR CRIMES

---

1. TREASON

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

Here's another definition:

trea·son

(tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

If you don't consider offering only a continuous string of ever changing lies as justification for taking the nation into a war that has squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars in current and future debt, or illegal, unconstitutional unwarranted spying against American citizens to be a betrayal of trust or confidence, please tell us what it is. :shocked:

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution provides that each president shall recite the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The Vice President also swears of affirms a similar oath. Since the day Bush and Cheney took office, they and their henchmen have waged an aggressive war against the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

How is that not a violation of their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

How is that not a violation of allegiance toward one's country or the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies?

Even if you don't believe that in so doing, they have committed treason, they have most definitely violated their oaths of office. :|

2. MURDER

Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another. One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, many deaths. As of 01/5/08 10:40 pm EDT, your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal have murdered 3,909 American troops (and growing) and left tens of thousands more wounded, scarred and disabled for life in his war of LIES in Iraq.

All of the American casualties did not occur in one cataclysmic event. They happened over the years we since the Bushwhackos started their illegal war. If you question whether their actions constitute callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others, it begs the question of how many times, and over what period, can one consider excusing those ongoing, repeated acts that continue to raise the number of dead and wounded Americans on a daily basis. At what point does it shock the conscience sufficiently to cross the threshold from being 3,684 cases of mere negligent homicide, which is another criminal offense? :shocked:

3. LYING TO CONGRESS

In case you didn't know it, lying to Congress is a felony even if it is not done under oath. The following list of public lies are the same ones the Bushwhackos fed to Congress to convince them to authorize their war of LIES. It took just a few minutes to find lots of threads, including some like this one going back to 2004. The "macros" weren't as long, then, but either was the string of known lies. :shocked: (All times are Pacific time zone):

10/14/2007 01:34 PM

Originally posted by: Harvey

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
• "Well, of course he is.?
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:

11/03/2007 05:59 PM (See later post in same thread with more detail on first half)

Originally posted by: Harvey

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

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.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

11/07/2007 01:23 PM (Links and details for the first half of the previous post):

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Harv, what part of "If we knew then what we know now" do you not understand?

blackangst1 -- What part of "what the Bushwhackos knew BEFORE they launched their war of LIES" do you not understand? :roll:

• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.

Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges to process nuclear material.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.

• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
. (continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
. (continues)

4. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

The Bushwhackos have continually withheld evidence from Congress regarding Whitehouse involvement with anything and everything from Alberto Gonzales' communications to their involvement with outing covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to their direct involvement with the CIA's use of torture and the subsequent destruction of the tapes showing them in the act of committing that torture.[/list]

5. WAR CRIMES

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and others authorized and encouraged American intelligence agencies to commit gross violations of human rights, including TORTURE, in violation of international laws and obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which Berto the Clown Gonzales derided as "quaint."

Continuing to lie and deny the Bushwhackos' crimes despite all the documented evidence against them means either you're one of the lying murderers and traitors, or you're functionally brain dead. Which is it? :roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
3. LYING TO CONGRESS

Well, looks like it is time to bring up Impeachment charges against all of the following Democrats:

We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry ,among others, on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos, among others.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Continuing to lie and deny the Bushwhackos' crimes despite all the documented evidence against them means either you're one of the lying murderers and traitors, or you're functionally brain dead. Which is it? :roll:

The fact of the matter, Harvey, is that if there were so much "documented evidence", then GWB would have already been impeached. "Documented Evidence" means absolutely nothing without a trial and conviction, of which neither has occurred.

I'd suggest adjusting your macros slightly. Particularly #3 :laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that no political or practical reasons should ever stand in the way of impeachment. We need to impeach Bush so that the next asshole like him who becomes President doesn't assume he also has carte blanc to do whatever the hell he pleases.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys are missing his point. From a political standpoint impeachment would be retarded, yes. From a health of the country standpoint it might be a good thing though. I mean it's important to show future executives that they can't get away with this level of lawlessness without consequences.

That is almost the exact same thing the Republicans were saying about Bill Clinton...

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys are missing his point. From a political standpoint impeachment would be retarded, yes. From a health of the country standpoint it might be a good thing though. I mean it's important to show future executives that they can't get away with this level of lawlessness without consequences.

That is almost the exact same thing the Republicans were saying about Bill Clinton...

Except nobody in their right mind would ever compare Bill to Bushwhacko.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

McGovern is entitled to his opinion. But I have to disagree vehemently with many of his assertions. You could, in fact, take several of his lines verbatim and attribute them to posters on this very forum.

Wow, you've outdone yourself with the illogic.

You say that as if it disproves the statements that people in this forum also say them, when that's hardly the case. You simply irrationally assume they're both wrong.

There is no evidence to support the accusations. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.[/quote]

First, 'no evidence' and 'no guilty verdict' are two different things. There's overwhelming evidence for the charges against Bush, which only the blind can't see.

But more importantly, how can there be a guilty verdict without a trial? You are making a circular argument - there must be no trial, because a guilty verdict is needed to have one.

So, let's take your statement and extract the nugget of logic from it - let's have a trial, and see if he's guilty. A trial happens following impeachment - so you should support that.

So for all the hot air coming from the hard left (of which McGovern sits smack dab) it amounts to nothing credible.

You're as equipped to comment on political credibility as sea urchins are to comment on the air temperatures at 50,000 feet. But McGovern is the man who ran against the last president who SO deserved impeachment - who the country unwisely rejected. He has some experience on the matter. Your continued blathering that the nominee of one of the two main parties in this nation is 'hard left', ignoring the real meaning of that term, simply continues to display your ignorance and dedication to substituting hyperbole for substance.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You guys are missing his point. From a political standpoint impeachment would be retarded, yes. From a health of the country standpoint it might be a good thing though. I mean it's important to show future executives that they can't get away with this level of lawlessness without consequences.

As far as the 'Bush lied' thing, that's just one black mark within a sea of black marks. Impeachment is far more justified on the warrantless wiretapping or torture grounds.

It's simply their sworn duty to enforce and defend the constitution, which requires them to impeach for the crimes of the president and vice-president.

The political calculations shouldn't be the deciding factor, though in our nation's first impeachment, it appears they were.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

McGovern is entitled to his opinion. But I have to disagree vehemently with many of his assertions. You could, in fact, take several of his lines verbatim and attribute them to posters on this very forum.

Wow, you've outdone yourself with the illogic.

You say that as if it disproves the statements that people in this forum also say them, when that's hardly the case. You simply irrationally assume they're both wrong.

There is no evidence to support the accusations. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty.

First, 'no evidence' and 'no guilty verdict' are two different things. There's overwhelming evidence for the charges against Bush, which only the blind can't see.

But more importantly, how can there be a guilty verdict without a trial? You are making a circular argument - there must be no trial, because a guilty verdict is needed to have one.

So, let's take your statement and extract the nugget of logic from it - let's have a trial, and see if he's guilty. A trial happens following impeachment - so you should support that.

So for all the hot air coming from the hard left (of which McGovern sits smack dab) it amounts to nothing credible.

You're as equipped to comment on political credibility as sea urchins are to comment on the air temperatures at 50,000 feet. But McGovern is the man who ran against the last president who SO deserved impeachment - who the country unwisely rejected. He has some experience on the matter. Your continued blathering that the nominee of one of the two main parties in this nation is 'hard left', ignoring the real meaning of that term, simply continues to display your ignorance and dedication to substituting hyperbole for substance.

Nicely put. :thumbsup:

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

McGovern is entitled to his opinion. But I have to disagree vehemently with many of his assertions. You could, in fact, take several of his lines verbatim and attribute them to posters on this very forum. "Bush lied!" et al.

There is no evidence to support the accusations. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. So for all the hot air coming from the hard left (of which McGovern sits smack dab) it amounts to nothing credible.

Right, that's the point of an impeachment trial.

First the House has to pass the Articles of Impeachment though

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: woodie1
How could George (I carried one State) McGovern be wrong on anything.

So, the nation gave the biggest electoral victory in history to that point to re-elect the man who had already committed such crimes and abuses of power as would rip the nation apart and make the nation shamed for having done so one to two short years later, reducing the nations' confidence in the very office, and you say that man who ran AGAINST that corrupt president has a problem getting it right?

Gotcha. Just maybe, the public and you are wrong, and he's right.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, 'no evidence' and 'no guilty verdict' are two different things. There's overwhelming evidence for the charges against Bush, which only the blind can't see.

But more importantly, how can there be a guilty verdict without a trial? You are making a circular argument - there must be no trial, because a guilty verdict is needed to have one.

You're about as qualified to speak objective on Impeachment as Harvey. :roll:

The fact of the matter is that all of this "evidence" doesn't exist. If it did, GWB would have been gone long ago. There's a difference between reality and what you'd like reality to be.

You're as equipped to comment on political credibility as sea urchins are to comment on the air temperatures at 50,000 feet. But McGovern is the man who ran against the last president who SO deserved impeachment - who the country unwisely rejected. He has some experience on the matter. Your continued blathering that the nominee of one of the two main parties in this nation is 'hard left', ignoring the real meaning of that term, simply continues to display your ignorance and dedication to substituting hyperbole for substance.

:laugh:

McGovern is a proven loser, just like your hero. If you want to discuss credibility, let's go.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, 'no evidence' and 'no guilty verdict' are two different things. There's overwhelming evidence for the charges against Bush, which only the blind can't see.

But more importantly, how can there be a guilty verdict without a trial? You are making a circular argument - there must be no trial, because a guilty verdict is needed to have one.

You're about as qualified to speak objective on Impeachment as Harvey. :roll:

The fact of the matter is that all of this "evidence" doesn't exist. If it did, GWB would have been gone long ago. There's a difference between reality and what you'd like reality to be.

I posted links establishing the truth behind the charges while you've posted nothing but denials and bullshit. I'll leave it to more reasoned minds than your failing single gray cell to figure out who's qualified to address whether your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of LIARS MURDERS TRAITORS should be impeached, tried and convicted of the crimes I listed.

McGovern is a proven loser, just like your hero. If you want to discuss credibility, let's go.

NO! There are three groups of losers. The saddest are the citizens of the United States of America, who have had their Constitutionally guaranteed rights trampled and their hard earned treasure and the future of their nation squandered for generations to come your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of LIARS MURDERS TRAITORS.

The second are the citizens of the world who have watched as your by your wannabe Hitler and his wannabe fourth reich committed attrocious CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY in violation of international law and treaties.

The third are LOSERS LIKE YOU who cling desperately to the discredited notion that your TRAITOR IN CHIEF and his criminal cabal of LIARS MURDERS TRAITORS are not the monsters they have proven themselves to be.

Continuing to lie and deny the Bushwhackos' crimes despite all the documented evidence against them means either you're one of the lying murderers and traitors, or you're functionally brain dead. Which is it? :roll: