Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Now He Tells Us

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet. Posted April 12, 2006.


On Monday, Colin Powell said he never believed that Iraq posed an imminent threat -- and that Bush followed Cheney's misleading advice instead.
041206_2ndstory
powell at un
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The president played the scoundrel -- even the best of his minions went along with the lies -- and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." That is the important story line.

If not for the whistle-blower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush's falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed.

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a "mushroom cloud" over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The specter of the Iraqi nuclear threat was primarily based on an already-discredited claim that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. In fact, at the time, the INR wrote in the National Intelligence Estimate that it "accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose."

The other major evidence President Bush gave Americans for a revitalized Iraq nuclear program, of course, was his 2003 State of the Union claim -- later found to be based on forged documents -- that a deal had been made to obtain uranium from Niger. This deal was exposed within the administration as bogus before the president's speech in January by Ambassador Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA. Wilson only went public with his criticisms in an op-ed piece in the New York Times a half year later in response to what he charged were the administration's continued distortion of the evidence. In excerpts later made available to the public, it is clear that the Niger claim doesn't even appear as a key finding in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while the INR dissent in that document dismisses it curtly: "[T]he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment highly dubious."

I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it."

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn't the president: "That was all Cheney." A convenient response for a Bush family loyalist, perhaps, but it begs the question of how the president came to be a captive of his vice president's fantasies.

More important: Why was this doubt, on the part of the secretary of state and others, about the salient facts justifying the invasion of Iraq kept from the public until we heard the truth from whistle-blower Wilson, whose credibility the president then sought to destroy? In matters of national security, when a president leaks, he lies.

By selectively releasing classified information to suit his political purposes, as President Bush did in this case, he is denying that there was a valid basis for keeping the intelligence findings secret in the first place. "We ought to get to the bottom of it, so it can be evaluated by the American people," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I couldn't have put it any better.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Robert Scheer is the author of the new book, Playing President: My Relationships with Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Reagan and Clinton -- and How They Did Not Prepare Me for George W. Bush. Read more Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I supported the war
Posted by: kryptx on Apr 12, 2006 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I never believed that Iraq (meaning, the Iraqi government and its military assets) posed an imminent or possibly even future (i.e. in the next 10 years) threat to the United States. In fact, the idea is so absurd to me that I don't understand why this article is trying to give the impression that we acted in response to our fear of a mushroom cloud over an American city.

I supported the war for the reasons that Henry Kissinger supported the war:

I did not see how we could project the war against terror and leave intact a government that had the largest army in the region, had potentially the largest oil income, and the greatest capacity to support terrorism. And through its very existence, it symbolically demonstrated that you could challenge the United States through 17 violations of a U.N.-negotiated ceasefire. And in addition, I believe, as [President Bill] Clinton did and as [President George W.] Bush did, as did every intelligence officer that I’ve ever met, that they did have weapons of mass destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is a WMD? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What is a WMD? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: What is a WMD? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What is a WMD? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: What is a WMD? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What is a WMD? Posted by: aunkmaa
» RE: Thank you Posted by: The Butcher
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: fifthworld
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kmeyer
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kmeyer
» What's to refute? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: brad
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: amazed again
» RE: What's to refute? Posted by: amazed again
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: YogiBear
» Have you served in Iraq??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Have you served in Iraq???...er! Posted by: Captainmagic
» More than I can say??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» signup bonuses Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: signup bonuses Posted by: kryptx
» RE: signup bonuses Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: signup bonuses Posted by: kryptx
» RE: More than I can say??? Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Have you served in Iraq??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Have you served in Iraq??? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: mythbuster
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: Whistler
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» Kissenger's entire argument... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: Anti-Flag13
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: bqtrain
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I supported the war Posted by: kryptx
Impeach BUSH
Posted by: thinkverybig on Apr 12, 2006 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Enough with the talk... let's IMPEACH BUSH and CONGRESS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeach BUSH Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: Impeach BUSH Posted by: Roverton
» RE: Impeach BUSH Posted by: jeffrey7
» RE: Impeach BUSH Posted by: FastEddy
How's this for Irony . .
Posted by: BsAs light on Apr 12, 2006 12:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anyone actually believe Powell when he stated that Iraq posed a significant threat to US national security? I never bought it for a minute, especially knowing that Bush and Wolfowitz had plans for Iraq on the table well before Powell went before the UN - I think it was called the Century for the New American Nightmare. I wonder if Dumya ever asks himself why daddy left Saddam in power. He must have known back in '91 that the backlash would be devestating. Why the hell didn't junior think to ask dad why he cut and run, leaving the ogre in power.

IN response to this:
"I did not see how we could project the war against terror and leave intact a government that had the largest army in the region, had potentially the largest oil income, and the greatest capacity to support terrorism."

Kissinger should also have concluded that no other country had a greater potential for civil war should that single constraint be removed - Saddam Hussein. I don't think anyone in the west is siding with the sick fuck but at the same time it was foolish to underestimate the importance of a mainly secular and brutal dictator in such a highly volatile area. How is this for irony. If the US manages to stabilize Iraq, Bushco will have to install a secular, iron-fisted dictator much like the one we just ousted . . and it will only have cost us 1-2 trillion and thousands of soldiers lives not to mention the civilian Iraqi casualties. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How's this for Irony . . Posted by: outtolunch
» RE: How's this for Irony . . Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: How's this for Irony . . Posted by: Ed Lammers
Powell is to blame....he could have resigned in protest
Posted by: CatDad on Apr 12, 2006 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of resigning in protest, Powell allowed himself to become, like Condoleezza Rice, a sycophantic "House N*gger." Bush doesn't employ blacks for their empowerment...he exploits them for HIS empowerment. He shamelessly used the credibility of Powell to start the war in Iraq. Powell is no fool and he had to know what was happening. He had the power and ability to resign in protest...but rather, he bit his lip and sucked up to the white power establishment which promoted him...and in doing so forever wrecked his legacy. He is now obviously bitter...but he has himself to blame. When you work for sleazoids like Cheney/Bush, you have to crazy glue your lips to their asses like Rice. Powell is a sell-out and doesn't deserve any sympathy for his ruined legacy.

Isn’t it sad how intellegent, decent people like Powell get exploited and marginalized in this nightmarish administration and ass-kissing, no-talent cronies get all the power?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's get rid of Cheney first
Posted by: rr136 on Apr 12, 2006 2:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm old enough to remember when Agnew was 'put out'. I remember the communal sigh of relief. Cheney must go - he must be tried for war profiteering - how about a huge fine, too?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colin Powell is a war criminal
Posted by: nbrown on Apr 12, 2006 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Question: should it be accepted?

Yes -- War crimes are awesome
No -- human rights are sacrosanct

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worse than an Uncle Tom
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Apr 12, 2006 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you know information to the contrary of that which is touted to be the reasons for war,and you walk along lockstep,
expanding the propaganda....you're an asshole!!!
Well,more to the point, you havesurrendered your Freedom sir for the yoke of the Tyrant. You have condemed your Country and it's People to an unimaginable torrent of ravings by madmen and lunatics and their eventuality of untold carnage. Way to go Powell. You knew the whole war was bullshit as far back as when you helped out with 'Desert Storm'. You gutless toadie! How can you possibly think there will be any good-will sent your way just because you're coughing up the truth now? Deathbed confessional?
Look it all breaks down like this. The Govt is the enemy of the People. It is the enemy of the Constitution. It is the enemy of Liberty and Freedom and Democracy too. These things you took an oath to defend against 'All Enemies' Foriegn and 'domestic'.
You should have stood up back in early days of the Bush Family Vendetta. You're trying now so that can cut you some slack,but, Colin, if you're not going to use this talk to send Bush and Co. to prision for Crimes Against Humanity. You'er still an Uncle Tom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They'll get away with it all
Posted by: Daniel Shays on Apr 12, 2006 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, in the thirty odd years since Watergate, the American people have degenerated into the most infantile, ignorant, lazy and easily manipulated human beings the planet has ever known.

It would be great if the Democrats could take power in 06, run the war criminals out of office and put them all in jail for life. But even if they did take the House and Senate, I doubt the Democrats would do a damned thing. They'd just rattle off a bunch of tripe about how "well, let's just be positive about getting our own agenda going. We don't want to go after the President and be Partisan." They are a neutered party--neutered by the DLC and the DLC's corporate owners.

And they won't win the house and senate in 06, because the voting machines were fixed a couple years ago, while the vast majority of this pathetic excuse for a Democratic Republic (HA!) were watching American Idol.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They'll get away with it all Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: They'll get away with it all Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: They'll get away with it all Posted by: Lincoln fan
deaudonnee
Posted by: deaudonnee on Apr 12, 2006 5:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The night we watched Powell "explaining" those infamous tubes, we looked at each other and shook our heads. He was possibly the only Repub we would have considered voting for had he run for office, but he failed by letting the bush bunch tell him what to say. I even told a lady at the casino one afternoon that I was afraid that bush was only using him to try to show the blacks how unbiased he (bush) was and that I really hated to see Powell get involved in that mess. He shot his wad with that exhibition. Poor Colin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: deaudonnee Posted by: Daniel Shays
Colin Powell is the new Zacarias Moussaoui.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 12, 2006 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple as that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Liar
Posted by: colek on Apr 12, 2006 8:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Powell never believed, then how come he didn't speak up when it matter? In fact, why did he lie when it mattered?

Powell didn’t give any indication of his internal doubts when he performed confidently in his hour-long UN speech. “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence,” Powell said.

At one point, for dramatic effect, he held up a small vial to demonstrate how lethal some of Iraq’s alleged poisons were. “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent,” Powell said. “That’s enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.”

Powell also asserted that some of the WMD was in four bunkers observed by U.S. spy satellites. The proof that these were WMD bunkers was the presence of decontamination vehicles, Powell said.

But State Department WMD expert Thielmann later told CBS News that “these particular vehicles were simply fire trucks.” UN inspector Steve Allinson also said some trucks spotted by U.S. satellites were fire trucks and other vehicles were so unused that they had cobwebs inside.

At another point in his UN speech, Powell embellished on quotes pulled from intercepts of Iraqi conversations to make the words seem more incriminating.

Trying to prove that Iraqis were removing illegal weapons before a UN inspection team arrived, Powell read from one supposed transcript of an Iraqi official giving orders: “We sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”

What the full State Department transcript said, however, was: “We sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas.” There was no order to “clean out all of the areas” and there was no instruction to “make sure there is nothing there.” [Powell’s apparent fabrication of the intercept was first reported by Gilbert Cranberg, a former editor of the Des Moines Register’s editorial pages.]

Tubes, Redux

Powell also trotted out the CIA’s disputed claims about the aluminum tubes, noting that while “there is controversy about what these tubes are for, most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.”

But Houston Wood, a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes, later told CBS News that Powell’s presentation was misleading, since the nuclear experts, who were concentrated in the Energy Department, knew the tubes were unsuited for uranium enrichment.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about,” Wood added. “I was just flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges.” [CBS News, Feb. 4, 2004]

UN inspector Allinson described the reaction of the UN team as it watched Powell’s much ballyhooed address.

“Various people would laugh at various times because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn’t mean anything, had no meaning,” Allinson said, adding that the conclusion of the inspectors after Powell’s speech was that “they have nothing.”

Though many WMD experts didn’t buy the Bush administration’s case, Powell’s speech worked wonders with the U.S. news media. Almost across the board, American commentators and pundits – long enamored of Powell’s glittering reputation – hailed Powell’s evidence as overwhelming and unassailable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Liar Posted by: covalentbonded
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: Boggeddown
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: Boggeddown
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: Boggeddown
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: kryptx
» RE: Another Liar Posted by: mythbuster
» But they AREN'T patriots Posted by: JoshuaLudd
george233
Posted by: george233 on Apr 13, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the outset of the Iraq abomination I firmly believed that Bush lied. Thank you Mr P{owell for confirming my belief. Bush as commander has his finger on the button. The man is insane, power mad and we should be afraid. Very afraid.
If Iran is bombed the whole Muslim world will seek revenge. Twin towers the 2500 brave american soldiers deaths will pale into insignificence bearing in mind that sone Muslim factions believe they will achieve Martydon by killing themselves in their cause. Those who willingly die for their beliefs are beyond our comprehension. I personally would not stick pins in my eyes let alone blow myself up for any cause.
Cheyney must go. Bush must go and that slimball Rumsfeld should go. The front line in Iraq sounds about right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: george233 Posted by: kryptx
» RE: george233 Posted by: gonzoskismet
Colin Powell whistleblower
Posted by: rsaxto on Apr 13, 2006 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Colin Powell as truth-teller and whistleblower. Will wonders pile up so high that we really are able to IMPEACH THE BASTARDS?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We knew he was having trouble
Posted by: bookwoman on Apr 13, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never supported the war in Iraq. It was obvious that this President would get this war, one way or another. He had been talking about it for six months. I guess the Congressional Dems, who claim they didn't think their vote would actually be used, weren't paying attention - duh!!!! Even the child in me, who had spent years ducking under desks in what would have been a futile attempt to protect ourselves from THE BOMB, only listened to the mushroom cloud garbage for sixty seconds before realizing what it really represented.

It was also obvious to me that Colin Powell didn't quite believe. I have never been sure why he stayed as long as he did. Maybe it was because he had given his word; maybe he thought he could work from within. However, he and his assistant, Richard Armitage are now free from their allegiences. I hope they use the power to fight the nonsense which seems to emanate from this Administration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WMDs? Hang Powell with the rest Posted by: chasaturn
SHAME
Posted by: ericn613 on Apr 13, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that he's decent enough to say this now but not before November 2004 is absolutely, horribly shameful.

In 1995, I would have been happy to support this man if he ran for president. In 2006, I think he should be thrown in jail.

SHAME ON YOU, COLIN POWELL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How could he be composed and silent through all of this?
Posted by: reddeer on Apr 13, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's difficult to comprehend how a man with a military background as dintinquished as his could have kept silent or at best minimized what he knew and believed - knowing that thousands of young men and women were being sacrificed. These weren't just "the" troops, some had been "his" troops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How could you be such a toughguy? Posted by: Boggeddown
» Now hear this all Vets!!! Posted by: Boggeddown
» RE: Now hear this all Vets!!! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
otto
Posted by: otto on Apr 15, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't Spiro Agnew have to go just before they got Nixon out? Maybe Cheney has to go before Bush too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: otto Posted by: dlf
Balderdash
Posted by: Ming on Apr 15, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't even read the other responses to such an incredulously naive belief to support the military action "war" the United States took against Iraq. If the writer was attempting to stimulate a discussion, he or she succeeded by the overwhelming number of responses. We as a nation were founded on the eradication of the native Americans and have ever since settled most of our national iinterests through the use of military force. Not much to be proud of when you think about it. If you think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

National Failure
Posted by: gonzoskismet on Apr 15, 2006 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need an investigation into this at the highest level of government. Not a partisan investigation. An Independent Investigation in the nature of a Grand Jury Investigation. Because, if these people KNEW that this was wrong, i.e. Colin and others, then this is not an Impeachable offense, this is TREASON to the people of the United States of America. I can believe that the intelligence was faulty about like I can believe a Scud missile could hit the United States. And, if Saddam was such a 'bad man' that needed dealing with, how come we sent him antrax via the mail in the 80's? How come George One didn't finish the job in the Gulf War? Too many 'how comes?' for this to be a black and white issue of 'Saddam was a bad man.' This isn't just a 'bad call.' These people are dead because of this. This was Johnny Panic screaming 'The End is Near!'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All talk no action
Posted by: veive on Apr 15, 2006 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When illegal Latinos get buzzed millions march.

When the French government screws with labor rights, that government gets shut down by hundreds of thousands.

When Americans have their nation stolen from them they have a circle jerk.

Guess who's gonna keep their rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All talk no action Posted by: saywhat?
Powell did say Iraq was not an immediate threat
Posted by: nap on Apr 16, 2006 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i remember quite well that Powell at some points said that Iraq was militarily insignificant and not posing any immediate threat. A bit later he would then say the opposite. He did permit himself some action independent of white house policy, but would also tell blunt lies when that was demanded of him.

So I think the title is wrong. For what that is worth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Impeachment Rules
Posted by: benzene on Apr 16, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something I've been a bit confused about.
Does Congress itself have to call for impeachment, or can it be initiated by the people themselves? If the latter, how many signatures would be needed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Impeachment Rules Posted by: brunowe
The Truth...
Posted by: thehousedog on Apr 16, 2006 10:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is that we have all been lied to by our President and our government. Now, what are We The People going to do about it? I know, let's sit around and blog about it and write letters to the editor or our congress people; no, that won't work. How about march in the streets; no, that won't work? How about marching into the offices of your elected representatives with their voting record and their public disclosure commission filings and demanding that they represent the people who voted for them and start doing their job; no, that won't work. Gee, what's left to do??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Truth... Posted by: kryptx
RUMSFELD STILL BLAMING 9-11 ON SADDAM AFTER ALL THESE YEARS
Posted by: TheStranger on Apr 18, 2006 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://ivangoldman.blogspot.com/


RUMSFELD: STILL BLAMING 9-11 ON SADDAM AFTER ALL THESE YEARS
DIGGING DEEPER
By Ivan Goldman
Rumsfeld's adherence to The Big Lie Tactic is, if nothing else, relentless. Here it is April of '06, and while recently necking with Rush on the Limbaugh show he was still trying to tie Saddam to the Nine-Eleven attacks. How many times does that bullshit have to be discredited? It's like asking how many times do you have to give more Lebensraum to the Third Reich before it lets you alone? The numerical answer is the same -- infinity. I'd quote from the interview, but I can't bear to look at his words anymore. Trust me. I guarantee it's a safer bet than trusting Rumsfeld.

In that same interview we learned from raging Rummy that anyone who wants him out of there is doing Bin Laden's work. You know what? Even if he'd been a success, even if his cockamamie ideas proved true and we'd found all kinds of nukes and nerve gas in the palaces and a letter from Bin Laden thanking Saddam for all the help with the you know what, and even if we'd created a shining light of a democracy in Iraq with no muss or fuss and paid for it with Iraq's own oil, and then Rummy were to make that remark linking dissent to treason -- the man would have to go. But not only is this twisted geek not a success, the guy couldn't put together a cold salad without burning down the entire neighborhood -- and then denying anything went wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re
Posted by: loralorite on Jan 11, 2007 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
85
89
95
00
6
1
15
0
23
30
35
56
63
68
76
82
93
01
07
12
27
21
34
40
47
55
60
66
74
85
91
13

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re
Posted by: loralorite on Jan 11, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
19
27
37
45
49
55
62
66
73
79
87
91
10
15
31
38
46
51
55
61
66
75
81
87
94
99
06
70
75
59
83
91
96
04
10
14
20
25

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re
Posted by: loralorite on Jan 11, 2007 4:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement