Censure Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mrbuck12000 · 02-09-2004, 06:13 PM

The following came to me because I am on the:

http://www.moveon.org mailing list and i thought i would help to get it out there and help them keep it going.

If this violates the forum rules anyway shape or form...let me know and i it will be changed.

mr b......
"
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html><body>

<table width="300" border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#E9E9E9" align=right>
<tr>
<td>
<table width="100%">
<tr>
<td>

Click on the image below to join our call on Congress to censure President Bush.
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<center>
<a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">
<img src="http://flash.moveon.org/images/ads/censure-200-cutoff.jpg" border=0></a>
</center></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>

Then please ask your friends to join as well.</td>
</tr>

</table></td>
</tr>
</table>
Dear MoveOn member,

The response to our "Censure" campaign has been incredible. In just days, more than 250,000 people have joined our call on Congress to censure President Bush for misleading us in his rush to war -- a response among the strongest we've ever seen.

The response was so strong, in fact, that you may have had trouble accessing our website to sign on. We've now taken steps to ensure that you'll be able to get through.

Tomorrow, we'll present our campaign to Congress at a press conference in Washington. We'll be joined by former top intelligence officers and by
parents whose children have been injured and killed while serving in the military in Iraq.

With your help, we can make our statement even more powerful -- we're aiming for 300,000 signatures on our petition by tomorrow. We can also reach a major milestone in MoveOn's history: our two-millionth U.S. member. True Majority, Working Assets, and the Win Without War coalition are also joining us in this campaign.

Please join our call on Congress to censure President Bush at:

   <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">http://www.moveon.org/censure/</a>

Please also take a moment to pass this message along to people you know.

President Bush's interview with Tim Russert yesterday showed that our campaign is more important than ever. Bush is still trying to mislead us with statements like, "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible." The facts show the opposite, of course, as outlined below.

There must be consequences when a President takes us to war based on assertions he knows are untrue. We've simply got to demand it.

Thank you. Together, our voices really will make a difference.

Sincerely,

- Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack 
  The MoveOn.org Team 
  Monday, February 9, 2004

P.S.: Here's our original message introducing the "Censure" campaign.

During the buildup to war, President Bush said the United States "must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.... We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring." <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54353-2004Jan27.html">1</a>

On the eve of sending troops into battle, Bush asserted that "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." <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html">2</a>

Now David Kay, the CIA’s chief weapons inspector, has testified before Congress that these weapons do not exist.

In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3980-2004Feb1.html">3</a>

But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889">4</a> And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.

Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now. Join our call on Congress to censure President Bush at:

   <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">http://www.moveon.org/censure/</a>

It's clear that we’ve been misled:
<UL>
<LI> David Kay said last week, "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," and "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html">5</a> Kay said these things shortly after resigning from his post as Bush's chief weapons inspector in Iraq.

<LI> Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html">6</a> Yet Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was sent to Niger in February 2002 to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there, concluded that "intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html">7</a>

<LI> A CIA report in February 2003 said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [1998] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs." <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/">8</a>
</UL>
It's also clear that the misleading was deliberate:
<UL>
<LI> The respected Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently found that the administration "systematically misrepresented the threat" from Iraq. <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf">9</a>

<LI> The basis for President Bush's African uranium claim was known at the time to be forged and not credible.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html">10</a> "Top White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation," according to the Washington Post.<a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6362092.htm">11</a>

<LI> Secretary of State Colin Powell became alarmed at the level of intelligence distortion. When he read the first draft of his speech to the UN -- prepared for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- he was so upset that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullsh--."<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030609/20030609040506.php">12</a>
</UL>
Our democracy only works when we know the truth. We now know President Bush and his administration deliberately misled Congress and the American people. Censure is the least we should expect in response.

The independent inquiry will need a year or more to come to a conclusion, according to the Bush administration. It took less time than that for the country to go to war. We don't need more investigation, we need accountability, and we need it now.

Join our call on Congress to censure President Bush at:

   <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">http://www.moveon.org/censure/</a>

We'll be holding a press conference in Washington on Thursday, announcing our campaign for Censure. If you sign on now, we can count your signature at the press conference. Please sign on right away.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

- Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack 
  The MoveOn.org Team 
  Tuesday, February 3, 2004

Footnotes:

1. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54353-2004Jan27.html">Washington Post, January 28, 2004</a>

2. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html">Official White House transcript, March 17, 2003</a>

3. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3980-2004Feb1.html">Washington Post, February 2, 2004</a>

4. An excellent, comprehensive rundown on the Bush administration's deliberate distortion of intelligence is available from the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889">Center for American Progress</a> 

5. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html">New York Times, January 26, 2004</a>

6. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html">Official White House transcript, January 28, 2003</a>

7. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html">Joseph Wilson Op-Ed, New York Times, July 6, 2003</a> 
    Note: Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had her CIA cover blown, possibly by the White House, in apparent retaliation for Wilson's contradicting the White House's line on WMDs.

8. <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/">MSNBC News, Oct. 24, 2003</a>

9. <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf">Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", January, 2004</a>

10. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html">New York Times, July 8, 2003</a>

11. <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6362092.htm">Washington Post News Service, July 23, 2003</a>

12. <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030609/20030609040506.php">US News & World Report, June 9, 2003</a> 
     Note: This article with the Powell quote is available for purchase from the US News & World Report archives for $2.95.


"

Phaenx · 02-10-2004, 07:47 AM

Does anyone else see the irony in the name "move on"?

Superbelt · 02-10-2004, 08:34 AM

No. They started out as a progressive advocacy group to get congress to move on from a pointless blowjob investigation. Now they have become strictly a progressive advocacy group. And this is not something to just move on from.
Move on, now means to move, on what you believe is best for this country.

Superbelt · 02-10-2004, 08:39 AM

Also, they are COMPLETELY consistent. Here is from their own faq.

http://www.moveon.org/about/

Quote:

On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.

They moved to censure clinton over the blowjob and then let it the hell go so we can do more important things. Now they are moving to censure Bush.

onetime2 · 02-10-2004, 08:47 AM

Ironic that they wanted to move on from a case about lying and now they want to make a case about lying. Whatever floats their boat.

To me, the case seems to revolve around exactly what Bush believed at the time he made his statements. Until someone can read minds or more evidence is presented that he knew for a fact that the claims were lies and made them anyway, it's a non-issue.

onetime2 · 02-10-2004, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Also, they are COMPLETELY consistent. Here is from their own faq.

http://www.moveon.org/about/

They moved to censure clinton over the blowjob and then let it the hell go so we can do more important things. Now they are moving to censure Bush.

They only made the argument for censure of Clinton in the face of impeachment when it was clear the public had no desire to see Clinton impeached.

Superbelt · 02-10-2004, 08:55 AM

Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed
Theres a difference there.
And testimony strongly suggests that that Bush has ignored the intelligence community's insistance that we don't know whether or not Saddam has WMD and it is prudent not to push that supposition.
And a censure movement would ascertain whether or not he did act improperly and lied about what our intelligence community told him.

Also, for your second post.---------
Why make an argument for censure against Clinton? There was no public support for censure. Most americans don't even know what censure means and does.
They thought it was right for him to be censured but not right to be impeached over something so trivial.

Likewise they are not looking for impeachment against Bush for lying, which is a charge they, their supporters and I believe. Only a censure.
It's consistent and an honorable purpose.

onetime2 · 02-10-2004, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed
Theres a difference there.
And testimony strongly suggests that that Bush has ignored the intelligence community's insistance that we don't know whether or not Saddam has WMD and it is prudent not to push that supposition.
And a censure movement would ascertain whether or not he did act improperly and lied about what our intelligence community told him.

Also, for your second post.---------
Why make an argument for censure against Clinton? There was no public support for censure. Most americans don't even know what censure means and does.
They thought it was right for him to be censured but not right to be impeached over something so trivial.

Likewise they are not looking for impeachment against Bush for lying, which is a charge they, their supporters and I believe. Only a censure.
It's consistent and an honorable purpose.

Sorry but, at the time of the impeachment discussions, censure was very much in the vocabulary of the average US citizen. Prior to the impeachment discussions it wasn't very well known but the press made it VERY well known soon after. Here's a story which quotes poll numbers from BEFORE Move On started the petition you speak of:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98sep15/head5.htm

Censure is a punishment to be meted out not a rallying point to start an investigation. There is currently no evidence to support censuring Bush and there's absolutely no evidence to support an impeachment.

As I've said, the allegations that Move On make require that they either were in Bush's head and knew his thoughts or that there is evidence to support that he knowingly lied. Neither of which is the case at this point.

Tomservo · 02-10-2004, 10:43 AM

As with all crimes, investigation must be done. President Bush has wisely named a commitee to investigate- the only real "problem" is that he himself cannot be investigated. There will never be an interrogation of the president on these issues- and if there were, he could simply state "terra".

This is the problem with a populace that barely pays attention to who it elects- sometimes you end up with an individual who is, at the very least, questionable. We can't rewrite history to make Bush more right or less aggressive- what we can do is determine individually whether we think he's worthy of leading this country for 4 more years. Personally, I don't think he is, but that's a decision each of us must make.

It's ironic- the same folks who bash Bush for being an idiot and a right-wing corporate puppet also hold him accountable for actions he obviously (in their opinion) has no concept of. Calling him an idiot and a puppet is a lot less difficult to prove than calling him evil and a robberbaron!

For the purposes of this conversation, I hold no opinion except to say you should form your own opinion. Bush may be the bee's knees!

onetime2 · 02-10-2004, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo

It's ironic- the same folks who bash Bush for being an idiot and a right-wing corporate puppet also hold him accountable for actions he obviously (in their opinion) has no concept of. Calling him an idiot and a puppet is a lot less difficult to prove than calling him evil and a robberbaron!

Nice post Tomservo.

Along the lines of the above, it amuses me that the same people who claim he was able to gain a Bachelors and Masters degree without doing the work, was able to become a jet pilot, become governor of Texas, etc all through his infamous family connections and corporate ties, was allegedly unable to have his National Guard records reflect the requisite number of days. Of course, now that he's going to release the records, if they should exonerate him, the charge will be that they were doctored. Oh well, such is the life of a politician.

Strange Famous · 02-10-2004, 10:57 AM

Bush should be impeached for electoral fraud, in fact Bush should be stripped of the title "President" completely - he did not win the election.

Tomservo · 02-10-2004, 11:27 AM

Onetime2 - You'll catch me making Bush-related accusations as well... I do think the guy is a very average guy, intelligence-wise. His business, sports franchise, and gubernatorial history all suggest abject failure. What bugs me is that this is the best we can do now- voting for guys we've HEARD of. Bush? I know that name! Lemme vote for him! Arnold was in "Predator", I'll vote for him!

As a country, we can do better... not all our leaders should be able to be picked apart. Or perhaps we should just find folks we like, personally, and disregard the rest.

The key in the end is simple- if everyone chose according to who they thought was the RIGHT GUY, not who simply wore the right party's armband, we might have representative politics at its finest. Till then, it'll be 4 years of half the country being disgruntled... then, the other side gets their chance. Or maybe 8.

onetime2 · 02-10-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomservo
Onetime2 - You'll catch me making Bush-related accusations as well... I do think the guy is a very average guy, intelligence-wise. His business, sports franchise, and gubernatorial history all suggest abject failure. What bugs me is that this is the best we can do now- voting for guys we've HEARD of. Bush? I know that name! Lemme vote for him! Arnold was in "Predator", I'll vote for him!

As a country, we can do better... not all our leaders should be able to be picked apart. Or perhaps we should just find folks we like, personally, and disregard the rest.

The key in the end is simple- if everyone chose according to who they thought was the RIGHT GUY, not who simply wore the right party's armband, we might have representative politics at its finest. Till then, it'll be 4 years of half the country being disgruntled... then, the other side gets their chance. Or maybe 8.

I have no problem with Bush accusations, I even agree with some of them. I don't think he's a particularly good businessman. I don't think he's got the right ideas about getting away from our reliance on oil (although he's gotten a little better about this lately). I like the prescription plan and the tax cuts, but equal cuts should have been made in inefficient programs to couter their effects on the deficit. There are plenty more I could write about, but that's not the point of this thread.

Accusations without facts are worthless and contribute to the problem you mention later in this post. Voting by name recognition and not even caring enough to vote your conscience (or voting at all).

bt8624 · 02-10-2004, 01:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Superbelt
[B]Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed

I'm sorry....I missed the part where freedom and world safety was free, could you run that past me again? Or should we "move on" and ignore world threats like Clinton did, down size military...and national security, and have another 9/11? Think about that when you cuddle up to sleep in your nice safe and warm bed tonight.

bt8624 · 02-10-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
Bush should be impeached for electoral fraud, in fact Bush should be stripped of the title "President" completely - he did not win the election.

ummmmm.....ok.

Strange Famous · 02-10-2004, 01:46 PM

Please tell me you are not blaming 9/11 on Bill Clinton?

Superbelt · 02-10-2004, 01:59 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bt8624
[B]

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed

I'm sorry....I missed the part where freedom and world safety was free, could you run that past me again? Or should we "move on" and ignore world threats like Clinton did, down size military...and national security, and have another 9/11? Think about that when you cuddle up to sleep in your nice safe and warm bed tonight.

yet Clintons military did an awesome job of kicking Afghanistans ass with minimal threat to our own troops. (And remember, it was a scant 8 months after Bush took office, which left him absolutely no time whatsoever to make any changes to our military. Everything you saw in Afghanistan, that's 8 years of Clintons managment.)

Thank you very much President Clinton for coming through for us and leaving behind a military capable of doing what the Soviets couldn't, beating the Afghani's and reducing the threat we face from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Tomservo · 02-10-2004, 02:40 PM

bt8624- I don't want to pile on, but before you make wild accusations about Clinton's actions, you should do some research into Clinton's approach to international terrorism first. Clinton was Osama-obsessed before it was popular to be- which is kinda why Osama is still alive. The general public didn't believe bin Laden was a threat before 9/11, that doesn't mean the White House didn't.

For example:
AP 8/20/98 Statement by President Clinton "Today, I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security. I have said many times that terrorism is one of the greatest dangers we face in this new global era. We saw its twisted mentality at work last week in the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, which took the lives of innocent Americans and Africans and injured thousands more. Today, we have struck back. The United States launched an attack this morning on one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It is located in Afghanistan and operated by groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden, a network not sponsored by any state but as dangerous as any we face. We also struck a chemical weapons-related facility in Sudan. Our target was the terrorists' base of operation and infrastructure. Our objective was to damage their capacity to strike at Americans and other innocent people.."
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0113.htm

Of course, most of America reacted as though Clinton was just trying to distract them from Monica Lewinsky... so, logically, we were more concerned with a BJ than with the "terra" Bush crows about constantly.

Most folks know about Bush's month-long Crawford getaways, and have heard this story:
'July 10, 2001, Phoenix, Ariz., FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends headquarters a memo about Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school, theorizing al-Qaeda could be trying to infiltrate U.S. aviation [and CIA Director] Tenet brief[ed] Bush in Crawford, Texas, with an analytic report on al-Qaeda. It is based largely on old intelligence but raises hijackings as a possible threat,' on August 6, 2001.

Of course, the attack came a month later. Folks blaming this on Clinton or Bush are missing the obvious fact that our intelligence agencies were flawed, and continued to be with Iraq. Bush Sr. should've been the one to overhaul them, I'd guess, as he had experience at the head of the CIA, and if he didn't realize they needed a good flushing, why would Clinton or Bush, neither of who had any experience in intelligence? (Or, some would argue, *WITH* intelligence)

The only obvious wrongdoing I saw was Bush's lack of questioning the US-based bin Ladens. Letting his family get up and flee without proper questioning is inexcusable- any information they could have provided to help catch him would have been welcomed.

"NEW YORK, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- The bin Laden family were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace following the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.

Former White House counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke told Vanity Fair the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of U.S. airspace just after Sept. 11 -- a time when access to the United States was still restricted and required special government approval.

According to the magazine's sources, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI.

Clarke, who headed the counter terrorism security group of the National Security Council, said he does not now recall who initiated the request for approval. He said it was probably either the FBI or the State Department, both of which have denied playing any such role. "

02-09-2004, 06:13 PM	#1 (permalink)
mrbuck12000 Psycho Location: wisCONsin	Censure Bush The following came to me because I am on the: http://www.moveon.org mailing list and i thought i would help to get it out there and help them keep it going. If this violates the forum rules anyway shape or form...let me know and i it will be changed. mr b...... " <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> <html><body> <font face="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif" size=2> <table width="300" border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" bgcolor="#E9E9E9" align=right> <tr> <td> <table width="100%"> <tr> <td> <font face="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif" size=2> <b>Click on the image below to join our call on Congress to censure President Bush.</font> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <center> <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA"> <img src="http://flash.moveon.org/images/ads/censure-200-cutoff.jpg" border=0></a> </center></td> </tr> <tr> <td> <font face="Arial, Verdana, sans-serif" size=2> Then please <b>ask your friends to join</b> as well.</font></td> </tr> </table></td> </tr> </table> Dear MoveOn member, <p> The response to our "Censure" campaign has been incredible. In just days, more than 250,000 people have joined our call on Congress to censure President Bush for misleading us in his rush to war -- a response among the strongest we've ever seen. <p> The response was so strong, in fact, that you may have had trouble accessing our website to sign on. We've now taken steps to ensure that you'll be able to get through. <p> Tomorrow, we'll present our campaign to Congress at a press conference in Washington. We'll be joined by former top intelligence officers and by parents whose children have been injured and killed while serving in the military in Iraq. <p> With your help, we can make our statement even more powerful -- we're aiming for 300,000 signatures on our petition by tomorrow. We can also reach a major milestone in MoveOn's history: our two-millionth U.S. member. True Majority, Working Assets, and the Win Without War coalition are also joining us in this campaign. <p> Please join our call on Congress to censure President Bush at: <p>    <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">http://www.moveon.org/censure/</a> <p> Please also take a moment to pass this message along to people you know. <p> President Bush's interview with Tim Russert yesterday showed that our campaign is more important than ever. Bush is still trying to mislead us with statements like, "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible." The facts show the opposite, of course, as outlined below. <p> There must be consequences when a President takes us to war based on assertions he knows are untrue. We've simply got to demand it. <p> Thank you. Together, our voices really will make a difference. <p> Sincerely, <p> - Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack<br>   The MoveOn.org Team<br>   Monday, February 9, 2004 <p> P.S.: Here's our original message introducing the "Censure" campaign. <p> During the buildup to war, President Bush said the United States "must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.... We have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring." <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54353-2004Jan27.html">1</a> <p> On the eve of sending troops into battle, Bush asserted that "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." <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html">2</a> <p> Now David Kay, the CIA’s chief weapons inspector, has testified before Congress that these weapons do not exist. <p> In an attempt to evade responsibility for the misleading statements that pushed the nation into war, Bush has announced plans to form an independent inquiry to look into what went wrong. An inquiry would serve the Bush administration well: it would envelop the issue in a fog of uncertainty, deflect blame onto the intelligence services, and delay any political damage until 2005, after the upcoming election. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3980-2004Feb1.html">3</a> <p> But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889">4</a> And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him. <p> Congress has the power to censure the President -- to formally reprimand him for betraying the nation's trust. If ever there was a time for this, it's now. Join our call on Congress to censure President Bush at: <p>    <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">http://www.moveon.org/censure/</a> <p> It's clear that we’ve been misled: <p><UL> <LI> David Kay said last week, "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," and "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html">5</a> Kay said these things shortly after resigning from his post as Bush's chief weapons inspector in Iraq. <p> <LI> Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html">6</a> Yet Ambassador Joe Wilson, who was sent to Niger in February 2002 to determine whether Iraq was trying to purchase uranium materials there, concluded that "intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html">7</a> <p> <LI> A CIA report in February 2003 said: "We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since [1998] to reconstitute its Weapons of Mass Destruction programs." <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/">8</a> </UL><p> It's also clear that the misleading was deliberate: <p><UL> <LI> The respected Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently found that the administration "systematically misrepresented the threat" from Iraq. <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf">9</a> <p> <LI> The basis for President Bush's African uranium claim was known at the time to be forged and not credible.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html">10</a> "Top White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation," according to the Washington Post.<a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6362092.htm">11</a> <p> <LI> Secretary of State Colin Powell became alarmed at the level of intelligence distortion. When he read the first draft of his speech to the UN -- prepared for Powell by Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff -- he was so upset that he lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this. This is bullsh--."<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030609/20030609040506.php">12</a> </UL><p> Our democracy only works when we know the truth. We now know President Bush and his administration deliberately misled Congress and the American people. Censure is the least we should expect in response. <p> The independent inquiry will need a year or more to come to a conclusion, according to the Bush administration. It took less time than that for the country to go to war. We don't need more investigation, we need accountability, and we need it now. <p> Join our call on Congress to censure President Bush at: <p>    <a href="http://www.moveon.org/censure/?id=2313-3571696-AItLl9Xe4xyNMpHKNKR3lA">http://www.moveon.org/censure/</a> <p> We'll be holding a press conference in Washington on Thursday, announcing our campaign for Censure. If you sign on now, we can count your signature at the press conference. Please sign on right away. <p> Thank you. <p> Sincerely, <p> - Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack<br>   The MoveOn.org Team<br>   Tuesday, February 3, 2004 <p> Footnotes: <p> 1. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54353-2004Jan27.html">Washington Post, January 28, 2004</a> <p> 2. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html">Official White House transcript, March 17, 2003</a> <p> 3. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3980-2004Feb1.html">Washington Post, February 2, 2004</a> <p> 4. An excellent, comprehensive rundown on the Bush administration's deliberate distortion of intelligence is available from the <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889">Center for American Progress</a><br> <p> 5. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html">New York Times, January 26, 2004</a> <p> 6. <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html">Official White House transcript, January 28, 2003</a> <p> 7. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html">Joseph Wilson Op-Ed, New York Times, July 6, 2003</a><br>     Note: Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, had her CIA cover blown, possibly by the White House, in apparent retaliation for Wilson's contradicting the White House's line on WMDs. <p> 8. <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723/">MSNBC News, Oct. 24, 2003</a> <p> 9. <a href="http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf">Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications", January, 2004</a> <p> 10. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html">New York Times, July 8, 2003</a> <p> 11. <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6362092.htm">Washington Post News Service, July 23, 2003</a> <p> 12. <a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030609/20030609040506.php">US News & World Report, June 9, 2003</a><br>      Note: This article with the Powell quote is available for purchase from the US News & World Report archives for $2.95. <p> " __________________ "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002 Last edited by mrbuck12000; 02-09-2004 at 06:20 PM..

02-10-2004, 07:47 AM	#2 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Does anyone else see the irony in the name "move on"? __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

02-10-2004, 08:47 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Ironic that they wanted to move on from a case about lying and now they want to make a case about lying. Whatever floats their boat. To me, the case seems to revolve around exactly what Bush believed at the time he made his statements. Until someone can read minds or more evidence is presented that he knew for a fact that the claims were lies and made them anyway, it's a non-issue. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

02-10-2004, 10:57 AM	#11 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Bush should be impeached for electoral fraud, in fact Bush should be stripped of the title "President" completely - he did not win the election. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-10-2004, 01:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Please tell me you are not blaming 9/11 on Bill Clinton? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-10-2004, 08:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	No. They started out as a progressive advocacy group to get congress to move on from a pointless blowjob investigation. Now they have become strictly a progressive advocacy group. And this is not something to just move on from. Move on, now means to move, on what you believe is best for this country.

02-10-2004, 08:55 AM	#7 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed Theres a difference there. And testimony strongly suggests that that Bush has ignored the intelligence community's insistance that we don't know whether or not Saddam has WMD and it is prudent not to push that supposition. And a censure movement would ascertain whether or not he did act improperly and lied about what our intelligence community told him. Also, for your second post.--------- Why make an argument for censure against Clinton? There was no public support for censure. Most americans don't even know what censure means and does. They thought it was right for him to be censured but not right to be impeached over something so trivial. Likewise they are not looking for impeachment against Bush for lying, which is a charge they, their supporters and I believe. Only a censure. It's consistent and an honorable purpose.

02-10-2004, 10:43 AM	#9 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	As with all crimes, investigation must be done. President Bush has wisely named a commitee to investigate- the only real "problem" is that he himself cannot be investigated. There will never be an interrogation of the president on these issues- and if there were, he could simply state "terra". This is the problem with a populace that barely pays attention to who it elects- sometimes you end up with an individual who is, at the very least, questionable. We can't rewrite history to make Bush more right or less aggressive- what we can do is determine individually whether we think he's worthy of leading this country for 4 more years. Personally, I don't think he is, but that's a decision each of us must make. It's ironic- the same folks who bash Bush for being an idiot and a right-wing corporate puppet also hold him accountable for actions he obviously (in their opinion) has no concept of. Calling him an idiot and a puppet is a lot less difficult to prove than calling him evil and a robberbaron! For the purposes of this conversation, I hold no opinion except to say you should form your own opinion. Bush may be the bee's knees!

02-10-2004, 11:27 AM	#12 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	Onetime2 - You'll catch me making Bush-related accusations as well... I do think the guy is a very average guy, intelligence-wise. His business, sports franchise, and gubernatorial history all suggest abject failure. What bugs me is that this is the best we can do now- voting for guys we've HEARD of. Bush? I know that name! Lemme vote for him! Arnold was in "Predator", I'll vote for him! As a country, we can do better... not all our leaders should be able to be picked apart. Or perhaps we should just find folks we like, personally, and disregard the rest. The key in the end is simple- if everyone chose according to who they thought was the RIGHT GUY, not who simply wore the right party's armband, we might have representative politics at its finest. Till then, it'll be 4 years of half the country being disgruntled... then, the other side gets their chance. Or maybe 8.

02-10-2004, 01:24 PM	#14 (permalink)
bt8624 Upright	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Superbelt [B]Move on from a case of lying that didn't affect this country to one that got over 500 of us killed I'm sorry....I missed the part where freedom and world safety was free, could you run that past me again? Or should we "move on" and ignore world threats like Clinton did, down size military...and national security, and have another 9/11? Think about that when you cuddle up to sleep in your nice safe and warm bed tonight.

02-10-2004, 02:40 PM	#18 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	bt8624- I don't want to pile on, but before you make wild accusations about Clinton's actions, you should do some research into Clinton's approach to international terrorism first. Clinton was Osama-obsessed before it was popular to be- which is kinda why Osama is still alive. The general public didn't believe bin Laden was a threat before 9/11, that doesn't mean the White House didn't. For example: AP 8/20/98 Statement by President Clinton "Today, I ordered our armed forces to strike at terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan because of the threat they present to our national security. I have said many times that terrorism is one of the greatest dangers we face in this new global era. We saw its twisted mentality at work last week in the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, which took the lives of innocent Americans and Africans and injured thousands more. Today, we have struck back. The United States launched an attack this morning on one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It is located in Afghanistan and operated by groups affiliated with Osama bin Laden, a network not sponsored by any state but as dangerous as any we face. We also struck a chemical weapons-related facility in Sudan. Our target was the terrorists' base of operation and infrastructure. Our objective was to damage their capacity to strike at Americans and other innocent people.." http://www.alamo-girl.com/0113.htm Of course, most of America reacted as though Clinton was just trying to distract them from Monica Lewinsky... so, logically, we were more concerned with a BJ than with the "terra" Bush crows about constantly. Most folks know about Bush's month-long Crawford getaways, and have heard this story: 'July 10, 2001, Phoenix, Ariz., FBI agent Kenneth Williams sends headquarters a memo about Middle Eastern students at an Arizona flight school, theorizing al-Qaeda could be trying to infiltrate U.S. aviation [and CIA Director] Tenet brief[ed] Bush in Crawford, Texas, with an analytic report on al-Qaeda. It is based largely on old intelligence but raises hijackings as a possible threat,' on August 6, 2001. Of course, the attack came a month later. Folks blaming this on Clinton or Bush are missing the obvious fact that our intelligence agencies were flawed, and continued to be with Iraq. Bush Sr. should've been the one to overhaul them, I'd guess, as he had experience at the head of the CIA, and if he didn't realize they needed a good flushing, why would Clinton or Bush, neither of who had any experience in intelligence? (Or, some would argue, WITH intelligence) The only obvious wrongdoing I saw was Bush's lack of questioning the US-based bin Ladens. Letting his family get up and flee without proper questioning is inexcusable- any information they could have provided to help catch him would have been welcomed. "NEW YORK, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- The bin Laden family were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace following the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001. Former White House counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke told Vanity Fair the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of U.S. airspace just after Sept. 11 -- a time when access to the United States was still restricted and required special government approval. According to the magazine's sources, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI. Clarke, who headed the counter terrorism security group of the National Security Council, said he does not now recall who initiated the request for approval. He said it was probably either the FBI or the State Department, both of which have denied playing any such role. "