IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."
Special to BuzzFlash
Thursday, May 5, 2005
--------By Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=426
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "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 month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press … nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.________________Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's Guardian papers, and author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Certainly very interesting and the key point is the the line about 'the facts being fixed..'

Probably in essence this is true, but this document falls a long way short of something that could impeach bush. It is a memo of info discussed at a meeting that Bush wasn't at. It's 3rd hand info - so would never support impeachment.

It could start some digging by congress perhaps.

The main problem is that unlike the MJ trial. this isn't really something that interests the general public in the US - the media here will probably not follow up on it much as there is no advertiser $ in it.

While the DSM isn't enough by itself to warrant impeachement, it raises a lot of questions that need to be answered by the Bush administration. The House should pass a resolution of inquiry to investigate pre-war intelligence and policy. If it appears that Bush lied to Congress he should be impeached. If not...oh well.

My gut tells me Bush is guilty. I also thought Michael Jackson was guilty. Heh.

One needs to keep in mind that during the impeachment process you don't necessarily need any solid proof of anything ... all you need is an argument strong enough to convince the majority of the house to write the impeachement papers and the majority of the senate to prosecute.

If you're taken to a world court (or similar) then of course you need rock solid proof.

if they are fixed, then they are not facts !@ right DREW ! and i guess if their facts were fixed, then the FACTS everyone:rolleyes: says they go by, are wrong as well.........DREW !!....ONCE AGAIN, BUSH LIED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE'S A FIXED FACT !!

Originally posted by Freethinker
IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."
Special to BuzzFlash
Thursday, May 5, 2005
--------By Greg Palast

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=426
Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

T

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "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."

I always said, bush had a war, and needed a reason........didnt i , drew ?

Originally posted by korg
I always said, bush had a war, and needed a reason........didnt i , drew ?
I hate to bust your bubble, but you weren't a trailblazer with that accusation, Korg. These third hand, telephone game, re-drafted papers don't mean shit. They pose interesting questions, but they won't stand up in court.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I hate to bust your bubble, but you weren't a trailblazer with that accusation, Korg. These third hand, telephone game, re-drafted papers don't mean shit. They pose interesting questions, but they won't stand up in court.

These re-drafted papers have been vetted for accuracy both in the UK and the US. So are you saying they won't stand up in court because they are re-drawn? Or because they don't come right out and say bush lied? And see my post up-thread ...

in an impeachment you don't have to prove squat ... all you have to do is convince congress to impeach.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I hate to bust your bubble, but you weren't a trailblazer with that accusation, Korg. These third hand, telephone game, re-drafted papers don't mean shit. They pose interesting questions, but they won't stand up in court. hey prae.......let me have my moment...:D

Consider that we have a republican congress. Do you really think they would impeach bush just because he lied? However, if they do step up to the plate and act honerably the dems will be able to shout a great big
"TOLD YOU SO...nya, nya, nya, nya, nya, nyaaaaaa"

The answer to your question Echo is ... probably not but if the dems play it smart, they fake left (impeachment) go right (tie it to the republicans) by simply stating the republicans feel it is OK for the president to take the country to war based on lies and their failure to impeach proves it.

Also keep in mind -- the emporer is truly nekkid right now with his approval ratings at 42% and the approval for the Iraq genocide at 37% so there are no coattails for the republicans to ride ... not even Diebold can pull it off when the numbers are this low. Diebold would have to pull off swings of 20-30% from the polls -- so that won't happen.

If these congresspeople sense they are going to lose their seats due to Bush, there just isn't any telling how they will react. Many of them are freshman or 2nd term and would like to have long and illustrious careers ahead of them ... going down with the Bush-tanic is not the way to accomplish that. It would be the end of their short-lived political careers.

Well gee, freethinker,

Re-copied documents and shadowy annonymous government agents aren't quite enough to bring down Bush.


Keep dreaming.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

If these congresspeople sense they are going to lose their seats due to Bush, there just isn't any telling how they will react. Many of them are freshman or 2nd term and would like to have long and illustrious careers ahead of them ... going down with the Bush-tanic is not the way to accomplish that. It would be the end of their short-lived political careers.

I had not thought of it in those terms, Dop.

Thank you --deeply and sincerely-- for providing me with the first thing in a long time that has engendered any positive feeling in me about what's taking place in this country.

It cheers me greatly to think of even the possibility that the despicable War Party in this country might get the props knocked out from under them.

_____________________________

In years to come historians will likely judge the Bush presidency one of the worst in the history of the republic -- an amalgam of arrogance, radicalism and folly so egregious it's almost laughable. Abandoning common sense in foreign affairs, weakening the rule of law, handing the nation's wealth over to the super-rich, and squandering the friendship and sympathy of the world in rigid pursuit of a chimerical dream of a world that cannot threaten us, the Bush presidency has betrayed the nation's deepest principles.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Well gee, freethinker,

Re-copied documents and shadowy annonymous government agents aren't quite enough to bring down Bush.


Keep dreaming.

This is only the biginning. The truth WILL come out. Hopefully befor the 2008 election.

History will show bush for what he is. His genocidal war has nailed his coffin.

Originally posted by korg
I always said, bush had a war, and needed a reason........didnt i , drew ?

The final outcome of whether Bush lied or not has no bearing on the fact that you run with fantasy and call it fact. I'm sure some of your fantasies come facts will turn out correct in the end - that proves the law of averages, not a proof that your approach to what is a fact or not is valid.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Well gee, freethinker,

Re-copied documents and shadowy annonymous government agents aren't quite enough to bring down Bush.


Keep dreaming.

The documents were not re-copied ... they were hand typed and for a reason. Copied/scanned documents end up formatted to .doc, .xls, .pdf .rft or whatever -- and they all can be maniuplated because they are no more than computer files.

Typerwriters guarantee the protection that the docs could not be manipulated -- typewriters have fingerprints (learned that watching Perry Mason). This was a smart move on Smith's part.

Once vetted for accuracy, which has happened, they are as good as gold. And if something should go wrong with that plan, I'm sure the source would just hand over another copy (or the originals) -- BTW: there are several originals ... every attendee of these meetings has an original (they're actually meeting minutes) the same as in our country ... go to a meeting and you get minutes.

Now the dark shadowy figure as you call the source ... deep throat remained a shadowy figure for 30 years and no one had a problem with that -- why the sudden concern for anonymity and protection for the source. Oh, did I mention it's a crime to leak government data in the UK as well as whistleblowing on the government? ... maybe that has something to do with why the dude(ette) doesn't want a name tossed around.

Originally posted by DrewM
The final outcome of whether Bush lied or not has no bearing on the fact that you run with fantasy and call it fact. I'm sure some of your fantasies come facts will turn out correct in the end - that proves the law of averages, not a proof that your approach to what is a fact or not is valid. AND THE SAME APPLIES TO YOU. WHICH PROVES THAT YOU ARE NO MORE IN A POSITION TO CORRECT ME, THAN I AM TO CORRECT YOU ! if mine is fantasy, so is yours. and when you are right, it also falls in the LAW OF AVERAGES.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by DrewM
The final outcome of whether Bush lied or not has no bearing on the fact that you run with fantasy and call it fact. I'm sure some of your fantasies come facts will turn out correct in the end - that proves the law of averages, not a proof that your approach to what is a fact or not is valid. AND ALSO, if the slim chance of this being correct, and he's a proven liar, that makes you a sucker, and not as smart as you think ! " MR FACTS "

There were 2 issues - one was Bush and one was you. Don't get the 2 mixed up.

Originally posted by DrewM
There were 2 issues - one was Bush and one was you. Don't get the 2 mixed up. no, there was ONE issue. me saying what i have a right to say, and you butting in on my right to say it. which ever way i wanted to say it ! you are not the last word. and every time they expose bush for what he is, YOU look dumber !

Like I said - 2 issues... Bush & then me calling you on calling opinion fact. The mere fact that you constantly try to deflect that only servers to show your embarrasment. If you can't understand the difference then that's hardly my problem.