Those who think Bush did not lie to the American people and Congress by distorting intelligence before the war are wrong. Those who think Bush just received "faulty intel" from the CIA are wrong. Those who think there are no grounds for impeachment are wrong.

"If Saddam Hussein was an immediate and serious threat to America, as the White House claimed, then Bush might have been justified in invading Iraq. But it appears that Bush misled the public, the Congress and the UN by consistently overstating the threat from Iraq. By lying to Congress, Bush violated US Laws related to Fraud and False Statements."

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html

1.

"A classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists. The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States."

"On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States. However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group. The Bush administration used the potential threat from Saddam as a major rationale in making the case to go to war. The president cited the threat in an address to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, in an October 7, 2002, speech to the American people, and in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003."

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...06/0302nj1.htm

2.

"The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa. The CIA warned the White House early on that the charge, based on an allegation that Iraq sought 500 tons of uranium in Niger, relied on weak evidence, was not particularly significant and assumed Iraq was pursuing an acquisition that was arguably not possible and of questionable value because Iraq had its own supplies."

"Disclosures indicate 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. The claim was a major part of the case made by the Bush administration before the Iraq war that Hussein represented a serious threat because of his nuclear ambitions."

http://www.iraqfact.com/washingtonpost72303.html

3.

"Eleven days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries."

http://democrats.com/node/8609/print

4.

"The CIA had evidence Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction six months before the 2003 US-led invasion but was ignored by a White House intent on ousting Saddam Hussein."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...gence_ignored/

5.

"The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons."

"The White House ignored evidence gathered by United Nations weapons inspectors shortly before the war that disproved Curveball's account. Bush and his aides issued increasingly dire warnings about Iraq's biological weapons before the war even though intelligence from Curveball had not changed in two years."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1120-01.htm

PS.

Two volumes of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Phase II report comparing the Bush administration's public statements about Saddam Hussein with the evidence senior officials reviewed in private were released on September 8, 2006. The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda.

Key Judgments of the Report Comparing Pre-War Intelligence to Post-war Findings:

-Iraq did not provide any material or operational support to al-Qa’ida prior to the war.

-No evidence was found of any meeting between the Iraq regime and al-Qa’ida before the war other than a single meeting that took place in 1995 in the Sudan, and that meeting did not lead to any operational support.

-Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime. He refused all al-Qa’ida requests and issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al-Qa’ida.

-The claim that Iraq provided al-Qa’ida with training in chemical and biological weapons prior to the war was false and based on the reporting of a single source, al-Libi, whom the Defense Intelligence Agency warned as early as February 2002 was intentionally misleading his debriefers. The CIA concluded in February 2004 that al-Libi was a fabricator.

-Iraq was not aware of al-Zarqawi’s presence in Baghdad in 2002 until alerted by a foreign government. Saddam Hussein viewed al-Zarqawi as an outlaw and attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture him. Al-Zarqawi left in November 2002 and did not return to Baghdad until after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime.

-The Intelligence Community was correct that there was no connection to 9/11, no indication that Saddam Hussein intended to use al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group to strike the U.S.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2006/pr090806.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_..._investigation

Excellent plan, Lou.

President Cheney, prepare your speech.....

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Thanks, Matt. First Bush will be impeached and then we get a Democrat in the White House... Christmas is coming... Usually these kind of plans are located on the outskirts of wishful thinking but not this time...

uhm how do you wind up with a dem in thw whitehouse if you impeach bush? you are looking way to far ahead.

Oh and hey were are the all the quotes from Clinton; ala "Saddam Hussien is a clear and present danger to the US"....? circa 1999.....

__________________
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

H. L. Mencken


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Usually those plans are located on the outskirts of sanity.

The "Bush lied" mantra that the left-wing Kool-Aid drinkers spew is gettin' old...

Steve

No, this is more in the realm of fantasy.

Even if you manage to impeach Bush and get the 2/3 majority in the Senate needed to remove him, Cheney becomes the President, and we get a new VP nominated by President Cheney.

Bush will be president until January of 2009, barring accident or illness. This impeachment fantasy is a non-starter according to your likely Speaker of the House.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I was referring to the election in 2008.

You do realize that those comments were used to justify air strikes and continued sanctions on Iraq, right? You do realize that those comments weren't used to justify an invasion of Iraq?

There is evidence that Bush lied to Congress and the American people. Read my original post.

That's right, let's spend millions of tax payers money to impeach Bush even if it won't do a damn thing and he'll still be in charge until 2008.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Let us spend millions ,,,, let us forget the low income people that could use a pay raise, health care and other items on the list.

Let us spend the next 18-24 months with hearings and trials and get nothing else done.

yes, because air strikes are such a peaceful way of doing things.

I don't think the Democrats will waste all that money like the Republicans did in the 90s. The Democrats are the new fiscal conservatives. Check recent history. Republicans are the wild spending irresponsible party.

Impeaching Bush would do no good since as mentioned above Cheney would take over. I think this current government has pretty much sent the message that they can lie and not be held accountable.

Yes, please check.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

OK I checked. Reagan and Bush 41 made deficits. Clinton made a record surplus. Bush 43 spent Clinton's surplus in the first 6 months. Bush 43 made a record deficit.