Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney

dc_dux · 05-01-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Does Kucinich provide proof that Cheney or Bush manipulated intelligence? What is it? Does anyone provide proof? What is it?

Did anyone other than Bush/Chaney bear any responsibility for the intelligence data used to support the war? Who?

ace....Kuncinich does not have to prove anything in order to initiate an impeachment inquiry. The House would determine if there is sufficient potential evidence to adopt the specific articles of impeachment (the House doesnt have to prove anything either). The Senate, in conducting a impeachment trial, is the only body to require proof in order to convict.

Bush and Cheney were not honest with Congress and the American people in the manner in which they used the intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq:

"The president received highly classified intelligence reports containing information at odds with his justifications for going to war. " (further evidence Bush lied when he said he "went to Congress with the same intelligence....)

Quote:

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.

Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb.

The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.

...
The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.

However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.
...
The summaries stated that both the Energy and State departments dissented on the aluminum tubes question. This is the first evidence that Bush was aware of the intense debate within the government during the time that he, Cheney, and members of the Cabinet were citing the procurement of the tubes as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

On numerous other occasions, Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then-U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte cited Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes without disclosing that the intelligence community was split as to their end use. The fact that the president was informed of the dissents by Energy and State is also significant because Rice and other administration officials have said that Bush did not know about those dissenting views when he made claims about the purported uses for the tubes.
...
Rice added, "Now, if there were any doubts about the underlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts were not communicated to the president, to the vice president, or to me." (a lie by Rice?....the next sentence would suggest so)

The one-page October 2002 President's Summary specifically told Bush that although "most agencies judge" that the use of the aluminum tubes was "related to a uranium enrichment effort... INR and DOE believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons uses."

...the one-page summary, several senior government officials said in interviews, was written specifically for Bush, was handed to the president by then-CIA Director George Tenet, and was read in Tenet's presence.

full article: http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0302nj1.htm

There is evidence here that raises questions about Bush' truthfulness with the American people.

Whether it is sufficient for an impeachment inquiry is for Congress to decide (and IMO, they wont unless further compelling evidence surfaces)...but that doesnt take away from the American people's right know the truth about Bush's words and actions that took us to war.

At the least, Bush/Cheney need to explain why they never acknowledged or made reference to the minority findings by DOE and State Dept. in any publc pronoucement about the intelligence findings regarding Saddams's nuclear capability....and Condi needs to explain her lie that Bush was not aware of the DOE and State findings when he made such pronoucements.