Bush lied to us about WMDs in Iraq. He must be impeached.

After reading this Salon.com article I’m convinced that President Bush is flat out guilty of crimes and misdemeanors and should be impeached immediately.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam’s WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD, and Powell’s speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods.

Much like his insistence that there’s no possible way anyone could have predicted the New Orleans levies would break even though the White House had been told by specialists that exact possibility before the storm ever hit, Bush ignored the evidence that contradicted what he wanted to believe and then lied his ass off to justify an illegal war. If ever there was a sound justification for impeachment proceedings, this is it. It’s time we removed him from office and put him on trial for war crimes.

Go read the rest of the article, but be prepared to have your blood pressure shoot through the ceiling.

29 thoughts on “Bush lied to us about WMDs in Iraq. He must be impeached.

  1. Nah. At this point you let the little worm slowly rot in place and wave him off. I don’t want him becoming a martyr to “conservative values” or whatever it is he was supposed to represent.

    I want him to be to the Republicans as he should be to Democrats: ignominious, ignoble, and ignored. It’s the worst legacy you can give to a President – not simply a black mark in our history, but to be forgotten entirely as irrelevant and unwanted.

  2. Fuck martyrdom, this is beyond that.  Republicans are already pissed off at what Bush has done in the last couple years.  If there was ever a time to impeach, now is it!

  3. What’s sad is that, despite the fact that the President is Commander in Chief, that he can’t be court-martialed.  In any other context, someone responsible for 3000+ unnecessary deaths would be staring down the business end of a firing squad. Stupid, STUPID loophole…

  4. 3000+? More like 100,000+ are the estimates for civilian dead.

    This morning I was listening to the last in a series of programmes about the Clinton Whitehouse, on BBC radio 4.  It was on the Lewinsky affair.  One of his close advisors said that Republicans got it wrong- the impeachment just made people dislike them.  He said that what Rep’s should have done is just stayed seated and refused to applaud the State of the Union address.  It would have just shamed him, a powerful gesture, instead of what started to look like a witch hunt by many seniors Reps who were known to have mistresses them selves. 

    The most telling comment was Bill’s approval rating NEVER fell below 50% in the 2nd term, and if had been allowed to stand, would have won easily in 2000. In contrast

    “George Bush’s approval rating is hovering in the high 20’s, and he hasn’t slept with anyone.”

  5. On a semi-related (and interestingly timed) note:

    Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

    67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

    Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 – As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush’ and Vice President Cheney’s actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

    The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.


    The Zogby poll was conceived and commissioned by 911truth.org and paid for with generous assistance from individual project donors and Visibility911.com. 911truth.org is a national information clearing house and grassroots resource center for the US 9/11 truth movement. The group is dedicated to investigation, education, organizing, and accountability regarding the recent criminal misuse of government to promote fear, repression and endless war.

    Survey Methodology

    This is a telephone survey of adults nationwide conducted by Zogby International from August 23 to August 27, 2007. The target sample is 1,000 interviews with approximately 71 questions asked. Samples are randomly drawn from telephone cd’s of national listed sample. Zogby International surveys employ sampling strategies in which selection probabilities are proportional to population size within area codes and exchanges. As many as six calls are made to reach a sampled phone number. Cooperation rates are calculated using one of AAPOR’s approved methodologies and are comparable to other professional public-opinion surveys conducted using similar sampling strategies. Weighting by region, party, age, race, religion, and gender is used to adjust for non-response. The margin of error is +/- 3.1 percentage points. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

    For the full poll and demographic breakdown of results, see: http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

    Not sure that it means all that much, but interesting nonetheless.

  6. Bush is a traitor who has trampled on our principles and shredded our Constitution.  He has made our nation an object of contempt for the rest of the world.  The first step on the long road of restoration of our nation’s honor must be impeachment and removal from office of Cheney, then Bush, followed by their prosecution for war crimes.
    Then we must fully withdraw from Iraq (except Kurdistan, where I believe we actually would be welcome) as quickly as safely possible.

  7. What this thread has to do with the 9/11 attacks is beyond me?  I don’t mind Bush bashin but go read the other thread already on this site if you want to know how people feel bout 9/11 conspiracies.

  8. MM: I don’t want him becoming a martyr to “conservative values” or whatever it is he was supposed to represent

    Agreed- The cries of a martyr are louder than reason

    Cubiclegrrl: What’s sad is that, despite the fact that the President is Commander in Chief, that he can’t be court-martialed

    You could start a riot with that- an ideal democracy wouldn’t grant legal immunity to the leader- maybe though there’s more than one way to skin a cat (maybe send him to the hague for war crimes)

    quote from LH: “George Bush’s approval rating is hovering in the high 20’s, and he hasn’t slept with anyone.”

    I’m in my 20’s and I havn’t slept with anyone

    Gemma: Why not just hand him over to the iraqis, thats the kind of justice he seems to advocate…

    Who could give the green light to do so? It might help though if iraq called for extradition, but can’t with the occupation (loss of power if they did)

    Webs – on 9/11 conspiricies – I simply don’t know enough. I’m not emotionally compelled to believe it was/wasn’t terrorist, as far as I’m concerned both are possible for what I know now. All things might need plausable explanation of all events/observations, and that both theories might have

  9. Bahamat – go read the other threads on this site.  Or better yet, just read the one I wrote about 2-5 months ago.  It has all the sources and reasons you need to not buy into conspiracy BS.

  10. Thanks!  I would very much appreciate that. 

    BTW, just cause you found it the smart way doesn’t mean it’s the lazy way. wink

  11. What this thread has to do with the 9/11 attacks is beyond me?  I don’t mind Bush bashin but go read the other thread already on this site if you want to know how people feel bout 9/11 conspiracies.

    I wasn’t pushing any 9-11 conspiracy theory because I don’t buy any of them. The Bush administration has demonstrated that it’s too fucking incompetent for a conspiracy, anyway. I only mentioned it because of the impeachment number cited by Zogby. I included the group’s information to demonstrate who paid for the poll. There is no problem here, stand down red alert.

  12. The Zogby poll was conceived and commissioned by 911truth.org

    Sorry for the confusion Len, but you have to realize, this site draws a lot of fundies on all topics.  And 9/11 brings quite a few just itself.  But reading the above makes it seem as though you are spreading the message, so I would be careful how you bring that up.  It’s obvious, when looking at where the study came from it has a bias.

  13. 9/11 was the driver to get into Iraq- the lie that Saddam was behind it. 

    One of the things the anti war/blair people say is that he has taken this country into war more times than any other Prime Minister – 7 in 10 years.  But the 1st six NO ONE really protested- though the reaction of some of the left has been amusing those times when the West was doing the ‘right thing’ and eg protecting Kosovo Muslims. 

    It is Iraq that people up in arms about- it was obviously founded on 2 lies- 9/11 and WMD, and DID LOOK as though it was just an oil grab.  The excuse ‘He’s a bastard’ would be more believable if the GOP didnt have a history of propping up other bastards- ask Chileans about 9/11- you get a different year…

  14. Bush should be impeached and then tried for crimes against humanity and starting a needless war. He should then be hanged in the same manner as Saddam was.

  15. It’s true. For a man who has stringently pressed for capital punishment, yet has so strongly claimed to be a Xtian. It would only be fitting to extradite him to Iraq and charge him with premeditated homicide, because in reality that is exactly what it is.

  16. I am very much conflicted about impeachment.  Of more immediate concern to me is that it looks like we’re careening toward attacking Iran.  Faux News has already deemed it necessary, and that seems to be indicative.

    “Government of Fox News, by Fox News, and for Fox News”

  17. I still have yet to see any credible reason for attacking Iran.  I understand that didn’t stop Bush from attacking Iraq, but there simply is no reason for Bush to go to Iran.  He has nothing to gain.  Iran has a government that will not be easily toppled, certainly not as easily as Iraq.  Plus if we attacked Iran, the Muslim community would get even more pissed and probably would unite even stronger than they have to stop us.  There is also nothing to gain from attacking Iran.  In Iraq there was plenty to gain, from government contractors, to stabilizing Iraq’s oil. 

    People think the trouble with Iran is their nuclear program.  But what they don’t understand is that Iran is really just building a military system.  They are trying to become as powerful as Israel, in terms of military strength.  The nukes is more or less a facade, but really there is little evidence that Iran’s nuclear program is producing nukes.  Anybody who thinks attacking Iran is a good idea hasn’t actually looked into Iran and what their country is doing.

  18. If I were Ahmadinejad I’d be working furiously on nukes – no vacations until they’re ready!!!

    Superpower attacked two countries adjacent to his.  Does anybody have a better rationale for nukes than he does?

  19. Well, to be fair, when Bush was making his case for going into Iraq I was scratching my head and wondering why we weren’t going into Iran instead. If we had gone into Iran instead of Iraq we’d have reduced a non-reduced standing military – no do overs from where we already beat the crap out of Iraq in the 90s but a real stand-up beat down. We could drive directly into Iran from Afghanistan, and if our intent was ever to “reduce Iraq to civil war and chaos” we’d have achieved that goal pretty handily with just pushing refugees ahead of our war front.

    Then, Saddam might still be in power ranting away but effectively we’d have destroyed every single effect military bits of power in the whole region in two decades. I’m not sure that really makes much sense in the long run or short term either, but it would have accomplished a lot more than getting mired in garrison duty in Iraq after the tank parade.

    Now, it makes no sense to hit Iran. Not because I think anyone can make a serious case that Iran is our friends or that they have our best interests at heart, but simply because we’ve wasted all of our political and military currency in our poor execution of the war in Iraq. We can’t afford to hit anyone in the region for any reason, because it would always be seen as a simple continuance of the same shitty war tactics as Bush has used in the past.

    If we want to go shooting anyone for some reason in the world, it almost has to be in the Caribbean. Maybe if Bush really wants to find a distraction from his crappy Iraq policy he can hope that Haiti decides to go ass up again real soon, or the orcs of Mordor could invade Idaho.

  20. Back in 2002 and we knew Iraq and Iran were not making any weapons and had no weapons.  Why invade either?  Neither one will make us safer, and in fact only makes us less safe and the region less stable.  Both are bad.

    As Richard Clarke says, we would have been better off to take just $1 Billion of the money we spent in Iraq and use it to buy weapons of mass destruction from unstable regions, such as North Korea, Russia, Middle East, etc…

  21. Personal legacy at impersonal cost? Regardless of what we think now, will the people of the future be happier that change happened (the cost is to this generation, not to the 3+later ones), and so look on him favourably? At least that might be what he thinks…

  22. Why invade either?

    Because Bush was about making his name as a “war President” and he’d have never been elected a second term if all the violence in the world we were committing was the low-level “policing the goat-herding drug dealers” stuff we have to deal with in Afghanistan. He needed to invade someone or else his constituency would only be worrying about “Why did that Jackass let Bin Laden escape?” You can’t be a war President without a war, and you can’t rely on the patriotic jingoism that his administration needed to grab their political goals without a serious state of fear. We beat Afghanistan too quickly, they didn’t give us any trouble without the CIA shipping them weapons to resist being invaded as was the case when the Soviets invaded.

    Who knows, maybe they were hoping that the Russians would fund Afghani resistance on general principle and misjudged the savvy nature of Putin’s long range planning. I mean, now the Russians are running Cold War “fuckyouYankee” exercises and we can’t do shit about it, or even complain much, because we’ve overextended ourselves thanks to our “war President.”

  23. You shouldn’t impeach Bush, that would be two impeached (if not undeservingly impeached) presidents in a row, that is an embarrassment. The U.S exports so much Tv you can be sure the rest of the world and their kids will know about this.

    Plus you don’t want the basically only good punishment you can give a president, that they can’t give themselves (a lame unmemorable presidency), top become stale and more norm.

  24. You shouldn’t impeach Bush, that would be two impeached presidents in a row.

    Actually, he would be the first to ever be completely impeached. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House Of Representatives but both were acquitted of all charges by the Senate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.