March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

This latest revelation means that at the time Bush justified the commencement of war against Iraq consistent with what was required under Public Law 107-243, he certified things not in evidence, and made claims to Congress (Saddam’s active operation of a WMD program and Saddam’s assistance to Al Qaeda) that he, Cheney, and Rummy already knew were false.

He lied to Congress to start the war. And now 53% of the American public says that if it is clear that Bush lied, they would support Congress considering impeachment proceedings against the president.

That may be why the Democrats just now made their stand this week. They have new evidence that Bush lied to Congress, and that the March 18, 2003 determination was faulty, and that Bush knew it was based on fabricators, faked documents, and doctored intelligence.

 

Report warned Bush administration their Al-Qaeda source was of doubtful credibility

<snip> As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel.

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.
“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,’’ the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.’’

Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing “the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.’’

At the time of Mr. Powell’s speech, an unclassified statement by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as “credible.’’ But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time stated “the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.’’ </snip>

 

so we are bad guys for liberating a country? and fighting against terrorism?

either donkey or elephant, we would have had to go in there sometime... dont deny it

 

I don't think so. I believe that the choice of Iraq was more or less arbitrary. Less because it was in the same theatre as Afghanistan.

A couple of points of clarification:

We didn't "liberate" Iraq. We changed the leadership from a secular totalitarian regime to a religious fundamentalist regime.

Iraq wasn't about terrorism. There were no substantial ties between Iraq and the terrorist organizations that threaten the United States.

My posted link shows demonstrable evidence that the statements this administration made regarding Iraq and terrorism had previously been debunked.

 

i beleive that we did, dictatorship never works

& while were on bush, who came up with " bush hates black people"?

 

I was because he lied under oath. And if a worthwhile case can be made against Bush then I'll support his impeachment as well. You guys make it seem like I root for Republicans like a crazed sports fan with thousands of dollars on the Super Bowl.
You post all these weak articles but probably have never once took the time to read the official report like I did over many days on the crapper (visualize haha).

The problem is all the evidence doesn't stack up well enough at this point for an impeachment but rather a self-induced resignation at the VERY most.

A couple years ago it was the intelligence community that presented a pretty picture to Congress which influenced their vote to go to Iraq (which we all know passed). Bush is not mentioned in the linked reports I posted below. The problem came up after the fact hardly anything in Iraq stacked up to what they were told in the initial intelligence briefings. Then they had to second guess the intelligence community hence this report.

NOW the current problem could be in the intelligence Bush was given that Congress never saw (which he does receive). You're sadly mistaken if you think the people presenting the intelligence to Bush back then didn't back up their intelligence in the same confident fashion as they did when presenting it to Congress. This is what I believe happened. IF it is not interpreted this way in the coming report from the Senate Intelligence Committee and Bush is at fault aside from having poor intelligence, then i'll undoubtedly support his impeachment and resignation.

Here are the reports for you guys: http://intelligence.senate.gov/ Feel free to down load both of them and read them both as well.

 

I know it's been said, but Clinton lied about getting BJs in the WH. If Bush did indeed lie, his lie brought our nation into a new era of pre-emptive strike mentality in our approach to international disputes.

 

If it was proven that he lied I think a lot of people would support impeachment, I know I would. But I really don't want to see us go down that road unless it is proven with hard facts because what they have now just doesn't equal hard facts. As much as I think he knew there is not enough hard evidence.

BTW - How does the Clinton thing even come up in an argument like this? If they both lied (hypothetically for Bush) then Bushy's lie is 100000000000000000 x worse than what Clinton did. Unless you're a radical right wing christian

 

If he lied to the extent that it jeopardized America as a whole then yes. All President's lie, all gov't officials lie. It's the nature of the beast.

 

Considering that over half the Iraqi population has less freedom now than they did under Hussein, I think a majority (or at least a significant plurality)of Iraqis disagree with you.

 

And boy I bet you Bush supporters are looking forward to when the rest of the world adopts this policy- good times ahead!

 

ok, so us left wing democrats love to take shots at President Bush, but do you conservatives actually think he is doing a good job?

 

I'm on the conservative side and I'd say it's hard to tell. No one can deny that Bush has been dealt a tough deck of cards in the whole scheme of things. From a crashing tech industry (economy) to 9/11 to the War on Terror to Katrina to outrageous soaring energy costs. It's a tough time to be President and I think all of you can agree with that. That being said I'm not sure anyone else could have done exponentially better. I def. think a lot of things should be done differently and things can always be better but given the circumstances, I can't hold a lot against him.

 

B.S.! The pre-emptive strike "mentality" blame you speak belongs to JFK, it was a right he held in regards to Cuba during the missle crisis in 1962. A right he told the world in a televised speech.

 

You mean like when Israel save their own skin? When they were faced with Nasser's threat to block oil from passing through the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel struck on June 5, 1967, destroying the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian air forces, and occupying Gaza, Sinai, the West Bank and Golan in six days?