Tag: Impeachment

More Lies: UK Military Records Reveal That Saddam Did Not Provoke U.S. and British Bombing Raids in 2002

Jon Ponder

Times of London:

Figures released by the Ministry of Defence have shown the reasons given by Britain and America for stepping up bombing raids in Iraq in the run-up to war were a sham, writes Michael Smith.

Geoff Hoon, who was then defence secretary, and Donald Rumsfeld, his American counterpart, both claimed that the rise in air attacks was in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down allied aircraft

However, the minutes of a meeting of Tony Blair’s war cabinet on July 23, 2003, leaked to The Sunday Times, record Hoon saying “the US had begun spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime”.

Ministers have since insisted that the stepped-up attacks, which began in May 2002, were as a result of increased Iraqi activity and were not an attempt to provoke a response that would give the allies an excuse for war.

The figures do not support those claims. In the first seven months of 2001 the allies recorded a total of 370 “provocations” by the Iraqis against allied aircraft. But in the seven months between October 2001 and May 2002 there were just 32.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, who obtained the MoD data in a Commons written answer, said it reinforced the need for an inquiry into ministers’ conduct in the run-up to war.

Plame Leak: Why Time Inc. Caved

Buck Banks

In a long, comprehensive (and free on-line) page one article in the Wall Street Journal the reporters explore “the legal differences between defending an individual and defending a corporation.”

Time Inc. technically owned an electronic file that contained Mr. Cooper’s notes, he says. As a result, the parent company could potentially be held in contempt of court and forced to pay large fines if its magazine and reporter didn’t cooperate.

Ms. Miller, by contrast, apparently kept personal possession of her notes, and the Times’s view is that it never had them.

Here’s the legal difference in a nutshell: corporations don’t go to jail, people do.

Finally, A Plame Game Explanation We All Can Understand

Buck Banks

From yesterday’s Chicago Tribune comes A Layman’s Guide to the Valerie Plame Affair by Garrison Keillor, an author and the host of the radio program, “A Prairie Home Companion”:

I feel it’s time for me to step forward and tell what I know about Karl Rove’s conversation with columnist Robert Novak in which Mr. Novak reportedly told Mr. Rove that CIA operative Valerie Plame had been responsible for her husband, Joseph Wilson, going to Niger to debunk the White House’s claim that Saddam Hussein was shopping for uranium in Africa to make nuclear weapons and that’s why we invaded Iraq, and Mr. Rove said, “Yes, I’ve heard that too.” Mr. Rove has been accused of revealing the identity of a covert intelligence officer. This simply isn’t true.

I happened to be in Mr. Rove’s office when the phone rang. I was there on behalf of my publisher, to see if Mr. Rove knows enough to make him worth a $6 million advance on his memoirs. (Answer: Not really.) He picked up the phone and the voice at the other end sounded like a rat trapped in a coffee can. “Novak,” whispered Mr. Rove and he pretended to stick a finger down his throat. He listened for several minutes. “Yes, I’ve heard that too,” he said.

As he spoke to Novak, Mr. Rove wrote on a notepad, “Rosebud knows”–“Rosebud” being Vice President Dick Cheney’s code name–and winked at me.

This raised a question in my mind: Did Rove know Ms. Plame had taken the identity of Mr. Cheney during an arrhythmia episode at Walter Reed and that a heavily sedated vice president had been flown by the CIA to Riyadh as Ms. Plame donned a latex-padded suit and took his place? She quickly discovered that the uranium was stored at the Whitewater property once owned by the Clintons and then deeded to Kofi Annan and used as a supply depot for black helicopters. She tried to warn Mr. Clinton and the next day he had that mysterious “bypass” operation after which he suddenly got chummy with ex-CIA chief George H.W. Bush and the two flew off to Southeast Asia like in an old Crosby-Hope “Road” picture.

[…]

CIA Told Novak Plame Did Not Authorize Niger Trip

Jon Ponder
The CIA spokesman said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

According to the Washington Post Robert Novak, the rightwing propagandist, was warned by a CIA spokesman in 2003 not to publish White House spin that Bush critic Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, CIA secret agent Valerie Plame:

[Bill] Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak’s call, he checked Plame’s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame’s name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to “asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ‘difficulties’ if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson’s wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name.”

So Novak’s excuse is, “I did it because I’m idiot who can’t read between the lines when a CIA spokesman is telling me an operative is covert.”

A Plame Name Game Timeline

Buck Banks

Thanks to FactCheck.org for this cool timeline of events leading up to the current mess.

The Timeline

1988-1991 – Joseph Wilson serves as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, Iraq. In July 1990, he takes over as acting ambassador to Iraq. (Joseph Wilson, The Politics of Truth 451, 2004).

1992-1995 – Nominated by President George H.W. Bush, Wilson serves as Ambassador to the African nations of Gabon, as well as the smaller island country of the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. (Wilson, Politics 451).

1995-1997 – Joseph Wilson serves as political adviser to the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe, stationed in Germany. On a trip to Washington DC, Wilson meets Valerie Plame who at the time says she is an “energy executive living in Brussels.” (Wilson, Politics 239-242).

June 1997 – Joseph Wilson returns to Washington DC as Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. At about the same time, Plame also moves back to the United States (Wilson, Politics 240), in part because the CIA suspects her name was leaked to the Russians in 1994. (Vanity Fair, Jan. ‘04).

April 3, 1998 – Wilson and Plame marry. (Wilson, Politics 276).

[…]

Washington Post Notices Poll Favoring Impeachment of Bush

Jon Ponder

The Zogby Poll that found that 42 percent of Americans would approve of impeaching President Bush if he lied about the reasons for going to war finally found its way into the Washington Post. What’s next, the New York Times? (I know, silly me!)

Was Bush motivated more by personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein than by a post-Sept. 11 desire to protect America from a grave threat? Did he exaggerate that threat? At what point was war inevitable?

More than four in 10 Americans, according to a recent Zogby poll, say that if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment…

The poll results certainly illustrate the intense polarization of the American electorate — not exactly news. But they also suggest an appetite for more investigation into Bush’s reasons for war and specifically — in light of the assertions in the Downing Street memos — whether his public rationales were in fact at all like his private rationales.

One topic for further inquiry, for instance, could be whether in private conversations Bush expressed the same kind of reticence about war that he advertised publicly. Some evidence — stories like this one in Time, which quotes Bush saying in March 2002: ‘[Expletive] Saddam. we’re taking him out.’ — suggests otherwise.

More people are waking up to the fact that we went to war on one man’s whim. The politics of this rising awareness will be uncontrollable by Rovian spin.

Poll Stunner: 25% of Republicans Would Favor Impeachment; Invasion of Syria Imminent

Jon Ponder
A quarter of Republicans are disgruntled with the president. They say he is doing a poor job – and they would call for his impeachment if they were convinced he lied about the war.

Good thing President Bush doesn’t look at polls because the new Zogby poll would seriously harsh his mellow: “Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25 percent) indicate they would favor impeaching the President” if he lied about the reasons for taking the country to war in Iraq. Impeachment is favored 59 percent of Democrats.

Inside the bitter outer shell, more creamy badness:

In a … significant sign of the weakness of the President’s numbers, more “Red State” voters … now rate his job performance unfavorably, with 50 percent holding a negative impression of the President’s handling of his duties, and 48 percent holding a favorable view. The President also gets negative marks from one-in-four (25 percent) Republicans—as well as 86% of Democrats and 58 percent of independents.

Notice how the 25 percent figure shows up twice. The number of Republicans who think Bush is doing a poor job equals the number who would see him impeached. Bush has done serious damage to a quarter of the party faithful. The blowback on Republicans in Congress next year could be horrendous.

It is obvious that the president and his team did mislead the country, so additional documents and witnesses will undoubtedly come to light. As evidence against Bush mounts, the number of Republicans calling for impeachment- or at least Congressional hearings – will rise.

And that is when we will invade Syria.

The Low Bar for Impeachment Was Set by Republicans

Jon Ponder

The atmospherics for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney may not be right until two years from now but it’s never too early to be informed about the mechanics and consider the options that confront us. Writing in Democrats & Liberals, Bert M. Caradine, editor of That Colored Fellas Weblog, examines current thinking on what is – and is not – an impeachable offense.

He also reminds us about the four Articles of Impeachment lodged against President Clintons by the Gingrich-Dole Republican Congress. The first three were related to the president’s sex lie in the Paula Jone’s case. But the fourth article has some saliency today:

Article 4 – ABUSE OF POWER

The President misused and abused his office and impaired the administration of justice.
1. The President made false and misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States;
2. The President made false and misleading statements to members of the Cabinet and White House aides;
3. The President frivolously asserted executive privilege;
4. The President made perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress.

Looks like a slam dunk to me!