If you're looking for the textbook The Little, Brown Reader, click here.
is a free service provided by Lance Brown, Candidate for President in 2008. You can visit his campaign site and weblog here.
About Lance Brown
The Campaign "Elevator Pitch"
The Longer Pitch: The Future of America is Freedom
10 Easy Ways to Help the Campaign
Join the On-The-Road Support Network
Lance In The Media
Contact Lance
 |
Easy online actions for advancing the cause of freedom.
PNAC.info
An effort to investigate, analyze, and expose the Project for a New American Century, and its plan for a "unipolar" world.
CampusLP.org
Free web sites for campus libertarian clubs!
The Little Brown Reader
A rolling catalog of articles and web sites of significance that Lance is reading.
The Nevada County Libertarian Party
"Your Local Party of Principle" (Chairman)
The Nevada County Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Dedicated to Creating a Civil Liberties Safe Zone in Nevada County, California. (Co-founder)
The Free School on the Internet
A developing effort to create a superior online K-12 school, with free attendance.
StopCarnivore.org
Stop the FBI Spy Tool Carnivore Now!"
GreenLiberty.org
Where Green values meet Libertarian principles.
Pictures of The Bill of Rights
Tips for Promoting a Campus Event
198 Methods of Nonviolent Action
My (many) e-zine and list subscriptions
The History of Drug Prohibition in the U. S.
The Bill of Rights -- Full Text
Support freedom in our lifetime:
"I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it."
A Little Worried About America
Boston Public: The Case Against Schools
The USA-PATRIOT Axe
The Nader 2004 "threat", and those poor, pitiful Democrats
Book Recommendation: Healing Our World
Taboos, skews, and contradictions
North Korea's Sensible Delusions
Lance on Regulation
April 07, 2004
US business group slams Bush 'deception' over Iraq warYahoo! News - US business group slams Bush 'deception' over Iraq war February 07, 2004
Co-Chair of Bush Panel Part of Far Right NetworkCo-Chair of Bush Panel Part of Far Right Network by Jim Lobe Federal appeals court Judge Laurence Silberman, who will share the chairmanship with former Virginia Democratic Senator Charles Robb, also has some history in covert operations. |
Please click the following to help my rating at these sites:
Top 25 Libertarian Sites (Currently #8) Blogarama's 'What's Cool' List (Currently #6) Blogster Top 25 (Currently #14)
Recent Entries
Explore the Archives
Index of All Entries
June 2004
May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003
Category Archives
9/11 Big Brother Bipartisans is the Craziest Peoples! California Recall Civil Liberties Criminal "Justice" Democrats Drug War Educational Freedom Greens Human Rights Humor Left V Right Libertarians Media Presidential Campaigns RV Info and News Republicans Science Site Announcements The Big I Thought and Thinking Uncle Sam War Youth Rights
I'm a Member of:
Libertarian Party
Libertarian Party of California Nevada County Libertarian Party Nevada County Bill of Rights Defense Committee American Civil Liberties Union Amnesty International International Society for Individual Liberty
Blog Places
Blogarama
Top Blogs RCS Blogdex DayPop Technorati Blo.gs Popdex Blogosphere Blogwise Weblogs.com BlogCritics The Weblog Review Blogarithm BlogLinker Globe of Blogs BlogTracker Blog of the Day 
Blogroll
Web Rings I'm In
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All contents of this site Copyright © 1996-2003 by Lance Brown for President in 2008.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 22, 2003
Obituary Backs `removal of Bush'
Obituary Backs `removal of Bush'
Woman `thought He Was A Liar'
Thursday, August 21, 2003
By Lee Sensenbrenner The Capital Times
When Sally Baron's family wrote her obituary, they described a northern Wisconsin woman who raised six children and took care of her husband after he was crushed in a mining accident.
She had moved to Stoughton seven years ago to be closer to her children and was 71 when she died Monday after struggling to recuperate from heart surgery. Her family had come to the question of what might be a fitting tribute to her.
"My uncle asked if there was a cause," her youngest son, Pete Baron, said.
Almost in unison, what her children decided to include in the obituary was this: "Memorials in her honor can be made to any organization working for the removal of President Bush."
Read It Rating: 4
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 40%
August 16, 2003
Bush's 9-11 Secrets
The Village Voice: Nation: Mondo Washington: Bush's 9-11 Secrets by James Ridgeway
The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and D.C.
July 31st, 2003 1:00 PM
by James Ridgeway
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Even though Bush has refused to make parts of the 9-11 report public, one thing is startlingly clear: The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending attacks—and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington—for several years. The government never told us about what it knew was coming.
See for yourself. The report lists 36 different summaries of warnings dating back to 1997. ...
July 30, 2003
Paul Krugman | You Say Tomato
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 29 July 2003
Excerpt:
What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: that the American people gave Mr. Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Mr. Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning.
Read It Rating: 8
Left/Right Rating: L2.5
Freedom Rating: 1.5
Learning Percentage: 60%
July 26, 2003
Ruppert: BEYOND BUSH -- Part I
This long article by conspiracy investigator (and creator of "The Truth and Lies of 9-11") Michael Ruppert was not nearly as interesting and revealing as I expected it to be, after it sat on my desktop intimidating me with its length for a long time. Much of the length is due to really long excerpts and quotations from other sources. Ruppert backs up many conclusions that I've drawn myself, including the key one -- which is that Bush will be impeached in his second term, if he wins (or otherwise acquires) one.
I don't know where Part II of this is, or if it exists yet, but it would be helpful, since Ruppert definitely leaves some unresolved issues.
Read It Rating: 7.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 39%
July 24, 2003
Blame for Bush's Uranium Mistake is spread around some more
t r u t h o u t - Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA
Oct. Memos Raised Doubts on Iraq Bid
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 July 2003
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, White House officials said yesterday.
The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.
The information, provided in a briefing by Hadley and Bush communications director Dan Bartlett, significantly alters the explanation previously offered by the White House. The acknowledgment of the memos, which were sent on the eve of a major presidential speech in Cincinnati about Iraq, comes four days after the White House said the CIA objected only to technical specifics of the Africa charge, not its general accuracy.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 60%
July 23, 2003
Arianna: what didn't the president know?
I'd like to state for the record that I'm not a fan of the modern journalistic tactic of making any scandal a "-gate" scandal. I still like Arianna though.
In Yellowcake-gate what didn't the president know?
Commentary by Arianna Huffington
July 22, 2003
Excerpt:
As the Niger controversy — Yellowcake-gate — is turning into a political firestorm, the question should be: What didn't the president know? And why does he know less and less every day? After all, it's becoming clearer that just about everyone else involved knew that the president was using a bogus charge. Whatever the opposite of "top secret" is, this was it.
The U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, knew: She had sent reports to Washington debunking the allegations. Joe Wilson, the envoy sent to Niger by the CIA, knew: His fact-finding trip quickly confirmed the ambassador's findings. The CIA knew: The agency tried unsuccessfully in September 2002 to convince the Brits to take the false charge out of an intelligence report. The State Department knew: Its Bureau of Intelligence and Research labeled it "highly dubious." The president's speechwriters knew: They were told to remove a reference to the Niger uranium in a speech the president delivered in Cincinnati Oct. 7 — three months before his State of the Union. And the National Security Council knew: NSC staff played a key role in the decision to fudge the truth by having the president source the uranium story to British intelligence.
The bottom line is this radioactive canard had been thoroughly discredited many times, but the Bush administration so badly wanted it to be true they just refused to let it die.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L1
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 20%
July 20, 2003
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 16, 2003
In claiming that 16 controversial words in his State of the Union address last January were technically correct, the president is implying that he didn't actually deceive -- or intend to deceive -- the American people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While the president wants people to focus only on the technical wording of his carefully crafted sentence, he forgets what every lawyer in the country knows -- that actionable fraud consists not only of a false representation of a material fact but also of the intentional failure to disclose a material fact. And what could be more material than the CIA's conclusion that the entire Saddam-Niger-uranium connection was bogus?
...
Why would the president have included that sentence in his State of the Union speech? What would have been his intent?
The answer is inescapable: The president's intent was to terrify the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had the means to explode a nuclear bomb over some American city — either now or in the immediate future. And who can deny that the president was successful in generating the mind-numbing fear that became a principal reason that Americans supported the invasion of Iraq?
Read It Rating: 9
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 7
Learning Percentage: 35%
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
By John Milne
Reuters
Thursday 17 July 2003
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.
"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.
...
After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one...
Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 15%
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements....
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
July 12, 2003
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Friday, July 11, 2003 Posted: 5:54 PM EDT (2154 GMT)
Washington (CNN) -- Did President Bush go too far in making the case for war against Iraq? It's a controversy that's clearly not going away. Indeed, it seems to be getting more intense every day.
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 37%
July 01, 2003
Pittelli | When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
Excerpts:
There are those who say that the President's current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:
...
These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.
Full article from CommonDreams.org
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: L6
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
June 28, 2003
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
By David Corn
The Nation
hursday 26 June 2003
George W. Bush misled the nation into war.
Who says?
Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
On the basis of what?
On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: Pretty high, if this all pans out like I think it will.
Learning Percentage: 85%
June 27, 2003
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
Obituary Backs `removal of Bush'
Obituary Backs `removal of Bush'
Woman `thought He Was A Liar'
Thursday, August 21, 2003
By Lee Sensenbrenner The Capital Times
When Sally Baron's family wrote her obituary, they described a northern Wisconsin woman who raised six children and took care of her husband after he was crushed in a mining accident.
She had moved to Stoughton seven years ago to be closer to her children and was 71 when she died Monday after struggling to recuperate from heart surgery. Her family had come to the question of what might be a fitting tribute to her.
"My uncle asked if there was a cause," her youngest son, Pete Baron, said.
Almost in unison, what her children decided to include in the obituary was this: "Memorials in her honor can be made to any organization working for the removal of President Bush."
Read It Rating: 4
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 40%
Bush's 9-11 Secrets
The Village Voice: Nation: Mondo Washington: Bush's 9-11 Secrets by James Ridgeway
The Government Received Warnings of Bin Laden's Plans to Attack New York and D.C.
July 31st, 2003 1:00 PM
by James Ridgeway
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Even though Bush has refused to make parts of the 9-11 report public, one thing is startlingly clear: The U.S. government had received repeated warnings of impending attacks—and attacks using planes directed at New York and Washington—for several years. The government never told us about what it knew was coming.
See for yourself. The report lists 36 different summaries of warnings dating back to 1997. ...
July 30, 2003
Paul Krugman | You Say Tomato
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 29 July 2003
Excerpt:
What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: that the American people gave Mr. Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Mr. Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning.
Read It Rating: 8
Left/Right Rating: L2.5
Freedom Rating: 1.5
Learning Percentage: 60%
July 26, 2003
Ruppert: BEYOND BUSH -- Part I
This long article by conspiracy investigator (and creator of "The Truth and Lies of 9-11") Michael Ruppert was not nearly as interesting and revealing as I expected it to be, after it sat on my desktop intimidating me with its length for a long time. Much of the length is due to really long excerpts and quotations from other sources. Ruppert backs up many conclusions that I've drawn myself, including the key one -- which is that Bush will be impeached in his second term, if he wins (or otherwise acquires) one.
I don't know where Part II of this is, or if it exists yet, but it would be helpful, since Ruppert definitely leaves some unresolved issues.
Read It Rating: 7.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 39%
July 24, 2003
Blame for Bush's Uranium Mistake is spread around some more
t r u t h o u t - Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA
Oct. Memos Raised Doubts on Iraq Bid
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 July 2003
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, White House officials said yesterday.
The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.
The information, provided in a briefing by Hadley and Bush communications director Dan Bartlett, significantly alters the explanation previously offered by the White House. The acknowledgment of the memos, which were sent on the eve of a major presidential speech in Cincinnati about Iraq, comes four days after the White House said the CIA objected only to technical specifics of the Africa charge, not its general accuracy.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 60%
July 23, 2003
Arianna: what didn't the president know?
I'd like to state for the record that I'm not a fan of the modern journalistic tactic of making any scandal a "-gate" scandal. I still like Arianna though.
In Yellowcake-gate what didn't the president know?
Commentary by Arianna Huffington
July 22, 2003
Excerpt:
As the Niger controversy — Yellowcake-gate — is turning into a political firestorm, the question should be: What didn't the president know? And why does he know less and less every day? After all, it's becoming clearer that just about everyone else involved knew that the president was using a bogus charge. Whatever the opposite of "top secret" is, this was it.
The U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, knew: She had sent reports to Washington debunking the allegations. Joe Wilson, the envoy sent to Niger by the CIA, knew: His fact-finding trip quickly confirmed the ambassador's findings. The CIA knew: The agency tried unsuccessfully in September 2002 to convince the Brits to take the false charge out of an intelligence report. The State Department knew: Its Bureau of Intelligence and Research labeled it "highly dubious." The president's speechwriters knew: They were told to remove a reference to the Niger uranium in a speech the president delivered in Cincinnati Oct. 7 — three months before his State of the Union. And the National Security Council knew: NSC staff played a key role in the decision to fudge the truth by having the president source the uranium story to British intelligence.
The bottom line is this radioactive canard had been thoroughly discredited many times, but the Bush administration so badly wanted it to be true they just refused to let it die.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L1
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 20%
July 20, 2003
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 16, 2003
In claiming that 16 controversial words in his State of the Union address last January were technically correct, the president is implying that he didn't actually deceive -- or intend to deceive -- the American people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While the president wants people to focus only on the technical wording of his carefully crafted sentence, he forgets what every lawyer in the country knows -- that actionable fraud consists not only of a false representation of a material fact but also of the intentional failure to disclose a material fact. And what could be more material than the CIA's conclusion that the entire Saddam-Niger-uranium connection was bogus?
...
Why would the president have included that sentence in his State of the Union speech? What would have been his intent?
The answer is inescapable: The president's intent was to terrify the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had the means to explode a nuclear bomb over some American city — either now or in the immediate future. And who can deny that the president was successful in generating the mind-numbing fear that became a principal reason that Americans supported the invasion of Iraq?
Read It Rating: 9
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 7
Learning Percentage: 35%
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
By John Milne
Reuters
Thursday 17 July 2003
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.
"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.
...
After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one...
Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 15%
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements....
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
July 12, 2003
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Friday, July 11, 2003 Posted: 5:54 PM EDT (2154 GMT)
Washington (CNN) -- Did President Bush go too far in making the case for war against Iraq? It's a controversy that's clearly not going away. Indeed, it seems to be getting more intense every day.
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 37%
July 01, 2003
Pittelli | When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
Excerpts:
There are those who say that the President's current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:
...
These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.
Full article from CommonDreams.org
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: L6
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
June 28, 2003
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
By David Corn
The Nation
hursday 26 June 2003
George W. Bush misled the nation into war.
Who says?
Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
On the basis of what?
On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: Pretty high, if this all pans out like I think it will.
Learning Percentage: 85%
June 27, 2003
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
Paul Krugman | You Say Tomato
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times | Opinion
Tuesday 29 July 2003
Excerpt:
What must worry the Bush administration, however, is a third possibility: that the American people gave Mr. Bush their trust because in the aftermath of Sept. 11, they desperately wanted to believe the best about their president. If that's all it was, Mr. Bush will eventually face a terrible reckoning.
Read It Rating: 8
Left/Right Rating: L2.5
Freedom Rating: 1.5
Learning Percentage: 60%
Ruppert: BEYOND BUSH -- Part I
This long article by conspiracy investigator (and creator of "The Truth and Lies of 9-11") Michael Ruppert was not nearly as interesting and revealing as I expected it to be, after it sat on my desktop intimidating me with its length for a long time. Much of the length is due to really long excerpts and quotations from other sources. Ruppert backs up many conclusions that I've drawn myself, including the key one -- which is that Bush will be impeached in his second term, if he wins (or otherwise acquires) one.
I don't know where Part II of this is, or if it exists yet, but it would be helpful, since Ruppert definitely leaves some unresolved issues.
Read It Rating: 7.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 39%
July 24, 2003
Blame for Bush's Uranium Mistake is spread around some more
t r u t h o u t - Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA
Oct. Memos Raised Doubts on Iraq Bid
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 July 2003
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, White House officials said yesterday.
The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.
The information, provided in a briefing by Hadley and Bush communications director Dan Bartlett, significantly alters the explanation previously offered by the White House. The acknowledgment of the memos, which were sent on the eve of a major presidential speech in Cincinnati about Iraq, comes four days after the White House said the CIA objected only to technical specifics of the Africa charge, not its general accuracy.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 60%
July 23, 2003
Arianna: what didn't the president know?
I'd like to state for the record that I'm not a fan of the modern journalistic tactic of making any scandal a "-gate" scandal. I still like Arianna though.
In Yellowcake-gate what didn't the president know?
Commentary by Arianna Huffington
July 22, 2003
Excerpt:
As the Niger controversy — Yellowcake-gate — is turning into a political firestorm, the question should be: What didn't the president know? And why does he know less and less every day? After all, it's becoming clearer that just about everyone else involved knew that the president was using a bogus charge. Whatever the opposite of "top secret" is, this was it.
The U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, knew: She had sent reports to Washington debunking the allegations. Joe Wilson, the envoy sent to Niger by the CIA, knew: His fact-finding trip quickly confirmed the ambassador's findings. The CIA knew: The agency tried unsuccessfully in September 2002 to convince the Brits to take the false charge out of an intelligence report. The State Department knew: Its Bureau of Intelligence and Research labeled it "highly dubious." The president's speechwriters knew: They were told to remove a reference to the Niger uranium in a speech the president delivered in Cincinnati Oct. 7 — three months before his State of the Union. And the National Security Council knew: NSC staff played a key role in the decision to fudge the truth by having the president source the uranium story to British intelligence.
The bottom line is this radioactive canard had been thoroughly discredited many times, but the Bush administration so badly wanted it to be true they just refused to let it die.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L1
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 20%
July 20, 2003
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 16, 2003
In claiming that 16 controversial words in his State of the Union address last January were technically correct, the president is implying that he didn't actually deceive -- or intend to deceive -- the American people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While the president wants people to focus only on the technical wording of his carefully crafted sentence, he forgets what every lawyer in the country knows -- that actionable fraud consists not only of a false representation of a material fact but also of the intentional failure to disclose a material fact. And what could be more material than the CIA's conclusion that the entire Saddam-Niger-uranium connection was bogus?
...
Why would the president have included that sentence in his State of the Union speech? What would have been his intent?
The answer is inescapable: The president's intent was to terrify the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had the means to explode a nuclear bomb over some American city — either now or in the immediate future. And who can deny that the president was successful in generating the mind-numbing fear that became a principal reason that Americans supported the invasion of Iraq?
Read It Rating: 9
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 7
Learning Percentage: 35%
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
By John Milne
Reuters
Thursday 17 July 2003
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.
"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.
...
After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one...
Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 15%
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements....
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
July 12, 2003
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Friday, July 11, 2003 Posted: 5:54 PM EDT (2154 GMT)
Washington (CNN) -- Did President Bush go too far in making the case for war against Iraq? It's a controversy that's clearly not going away. Indeed, it seems to be getting more intense every day.
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 37%
July 01, 2003
Pittelli | When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
Excerpts:
There are those who say that the President's current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:
...
These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.
Full article from CommonDreams.org
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: L6
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
June 28, 2003
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
By David Corn
The Nation
hursday 26 June 2003
George W. Bush misled the nation into war.
Who says?
Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
On the basis of what?
On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: Pretty high, if this all pans out like I think it will.
Learning Percentage: 85%
June 27, 2003
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
Blame for Bush's Uranium Mistake is spread around some more
t r u t h o u t - Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA
Oct. Memos Raised Doubts on Iraq Bid
By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
Wednesday 23 July 2003
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, White House officials said yesterday.
The officials made the disclosure hours after they were alerted by the CIA to the existence of a memo sent to Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, on Oct. 6. The White House said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, on Friday night discovered another memo from the CIA, dated Oct. 5, also expressing doubts about the Africa claims.
The information, provided in a briefing by Hadley and Bush communications director Dan Bartlett, significantly alters the explanation previously offered by the White House. The acknowledgment of the memos, which were sent on the eve of a major presidential speech in Cincinnati about Iraq, comes four days after the White House said the CIA objected only to technical specifics of the Africa charge, not its general accuracy.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 60%
Arianna: what didn't the president know?
I'd like to state for the record that I'm not a fan of the modern journalistic tactic of making any scandal a "-gate" scandal. I still like Arianna though.
In Yellowcake-gate what didn't the president know?
Commentary by Arianna Huffington
July 22, 2003
Excerpt:
As the Niger controversy — Yellowcake-gate — is turning into a political firestorm, the question should be: What didn't the president know? And why does he know less and less every day? After all, it's becoming clearer that just about everyone else involved knew that the president was using a bogus charge. Whatever the opposite of "top secret" is, this was it.
The U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, knew: She had sent reports to Washington debunking the allegations. Joe Wilson, the envoy sent to Niger by the CIA, knew: His fact-finding trip quickly confirmed the ambassador's findings. The CIA knew: The agency tried unsuccessfully in September 2002 to convince the Brits to take the false charge out of an intelligence report. The State Department knew: Its Bureau of Intelligence and Research labeled it "highly dubious." The president's speechwriters knew: They were told to remove a reference to the Niger uranium in a speech the president delivered in Cincinnati Oct. 7 — three months before his State of the Union. And the National Security Council knew: NSC staff played a key role in the decision to fudge the truth by having the president source the uranium story to British intelligence.
The bottom line is this radioactive canard had been thoroughly discredited many times, but the Bush administration so badly wanted it to be true they just refused to let it die.
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L1
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 20%
July 20, 2003
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 16, 2003
In claiming that 16 controversial words in his State of the Union address last January were technically correct, the president is implying that he didn't actually deceive -- or intend to deceive -- the American people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While the president wants people to focus only on the technical wording of his carefully crafted sentence, he forgets what every lawyer in the country knows -- that actionable fraud consists not only of a false representation of a material fact but also of the intentional failure to disclose a material fact. And what could be more material than the CIA's conclusion that the entire Saddam-Niger-uranium connection was bogus?
...
Why would the president have included that sentence in his State of the Union speech? What would have been his intent?
The answer is inescapable: The president's intent was to terrify the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had the means to explode a nuclear bomb over some American city — either now or in the immediate future. And who can deny that the president was successful in generating the mind-numbing fear that became a principal reason that Americans supported the invasion of Iraq?
Read It Rating: 9
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 7
Learning Percentage: 35%
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
By John Milne
Reuters
Thursday 17 July 2003
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.
"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.
...
After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one...
Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 15%
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements....
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
July 12, 2003
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Friday, July 11, 2003 Posted: 5:54 PM EDT (2154 GMT)
Washington (CNN) -- Did President Bush go too far in making the case for war against Iraq? It's a controversy that's clearly not going away. Indeed, it seems to be getting more intense every day.
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 37%
July 01, 2003
Pittelli | When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
Excerpts:
There are those who say that the President's current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:
...
These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.
Full article from CommonDreams.org
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: L6
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
June 28, 2003
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
By David Corn
The Nation
hursday 26 June 2003
George W. Bush misled the nation into war.
Who says?
Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
On the basis of what?
On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: Pretty high, if this all pans out like I think it will.
Learning Percentage: 85%
June 27, 2003
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
Is Fraud a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 16, 2003
In claiming that 16 controversial words in his State of the Union address last January were technically correct, the president is implying that he didn't actually deceive -- or intend to deceive -- the American people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While the president wants people to focus only on the technical wording of his carefully crafted sentence, he forgets what every lawyer in the country knows -- that actionable fraud consists not only of a false representation of a material fact but also of the intentional failure to disclose a material fact. And what could be more material than the CIA's conclusion that the entire Saddam-Niger-uranium connection was bogus?
...
Why would the president have included that sentence in his State of the Union speech? What would have been his intent?
The answer is inescapable: The president's intent was to terrify the American people into believing that Saddam Hussein had the means to explode a nuclear bomb over some American city — either now or in the immediate future. And who can deny that the president was successful in generating the mind-numbing fear that became a principal reason that Americans supported the invasion of Iraq?
Read It Rating: 9
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 7
Learning Percentage: 35%
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
Democrat Eyes Potential Grounds for Bush Impeachment
By John Milne
Reuters
Thursday 17 July 2003
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham said on Thursday there were grounds to impeach President Bush if he was found to have led America to war under false pretenses.
While Graham did not call for Bush's impeachment, he said if the president lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq it would be "more serious" than former President Bill Clinton's lie under oath about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
"If in fact we went to war under false pretenses that is a very serious charge," Graham, the senior U.S. senator from Florida, told reporters in New Hampshire.
"If the standard of impeachment is the one the House Republicans used against Bill Clinton, this clearly comes within that standard," he said.
...
After his appearance in New Hampshire, Graham issued a statement saying he was not calling for Bush's impeachment and saw the issue as a largely academic one...
Read It Rating: 4.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 15%
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
President Defends Allegation On Iraq
By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01
President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.
Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.
In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements....
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
Controversy over State of the Union claim intensifies
By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
Friday, July 11, 2003 Posted: 5:54 PM EDT (2154 GMT)
Washington (CNN) -- Did President Bush go too far in making the case for war against Iraq? It's a controversy that's clearly not going away. Indeed, it seems to be getting more intense every day.
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 1
Learning Percentage: 37%
July 01, 2003
Pittelli | When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
Excerpts:
There are those who say that the President's current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:
...
These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.
Full article from CommonDreams.org
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: L6
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
June 28, 2003
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
By David Corn
The Nation
hursday 26 June 2003
George W. Bush misled the nation into war.
Who says?
Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
On the basis of what?
On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: Pretty high, if this all pans out like I think it will.
Learning Percentage: 85%
June 27, 2003
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
Pittelli | When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush's Impeachment?
Excerpts:
There are those who say that the President's current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:
...
These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.
Full article from CommonDreams.org
Read It Rating: 6
Left/Right Rating: L6
Freedom Rating: ?
Learning Percentage: 35%
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
Bush Misled US Into Iraq War--An Official Finding?
By David Corn
The Nation
hursday 26 June 2003
George W. Bush misled the nation into war.
Who says?
Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.
On the basis of what?
On the basis of information preliminarily reviewed by the intelligence committee as part of its ongoing investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq.
On June 25, during the House debate on the intelligence authorization bill, Harman delivered an informal progress report on her committee's inquiry. Her remarks received, as far as I can tell, little media attention. But they are dramatic in that these comments are the first quasi-findings from an official outlet confirming that Bush deployed dishonest rhetoric in guiding the United States to invasion and occupation in Iraq. This is not an op-ed judgment; this is an evaluation from a member of the intelligence committee who claims to be basing her statements on the investigative work of the committee. Here's what she says:
Read It Rating: 8.5
Left/Right Rating: L2
Freedom Rating: Pretty high, if this all pans out like I think it will.
Learning Percentage: 85%
June 27, 2003
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
(Includes compilation of Bush's statements on WMD)
President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away - unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues.
Full Article... (long)
Read It Rating: 7
Left/Right Rating: R3
Freedom Rating: 3
Learning Percentage: 50%
