Of course we already knew this, but out comes more proof that Bush is the biggest crook in American presidential history.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/

President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an explosive new book claims.

Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, his book relates, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later — with the forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam bolstering the U.S. rationale to go into war.

Here's a simple question that will get dodged;

If it is true, does that change anyone's mind about what kind of President Bush has been?

It would me. I have no use for out and out lying. I would, however, want more evidence than someone trying to sell a book. How do we know which is the liar without proof?

If George Bush actually issued the order, or allowed it to be issued with his knowledge, then I would want to see him on trial for crimes against the American people, or whatever a similar charge might be.

I'm talking only about reality, not some guy writing a book without further proof, or liberal media people pushing their agenda against Bush.

"Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction."

Is that not good enough proof, along with everything else that's come out?

I'm not trying to cloud the issue, but "U.S. intelligence officials" is a bit too mysterious. It is not proof, or ever hard evidence of anything.

It's a pretty dramatic charge, and should have dire consequences if true, so there needs to be more.

If it is true, I want to see it proven and action taken against the Administration. The American people are entitled to honesty from their government.

All the rest of the gibberish until now about Bush being a liar is just political hogwash and bitterness about the 2000 election from the usual anti-war suspects.

Deane, you are so naive!

First off, Suskind is a Pulitzer Prize winning author and has more credibility than many in the Bush adminstration as he's not trying to protect his legacy or cover up his dirty laundry.

Secondly, CIA officers Richer and John Maguire, who oversaw the Iraq Operations Group, are both on the record in Suskind’s book confirming the existence of the fake Habbush letter. What would their motivation be in lying about this?

Thirdly, The London Sunday Telegraph first published a story about the letter in December 2003, on the same day that Saddam Hussein was captured in Iraq. Why would the they lie about it?

Bush has lied over and over again in order to push his agenda and protect his legacy. It's well known by most people that he wanted to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11 occured. Unfortunately, executive priviledge will probably never allow us to prove these charges to the point that would allow Bush die-hards to accept as fact. When you take into account ALL the stuff that has come out against Bush by those that surrounded him, it becomes one man's words against hundreds. Chances are, the hundreds are closer to the truth than the guy claiming executive privelidge.

Haven't we reached the point where the burden of proof should be on those who claim Bush isn't lying?

You remind me of a drunken sailor in a whorehouse with a credit card.

You're willing to plunge headlong into believing everything about this because that's what you want to believe.

I immediately raise a couple of questions.

1. It's an extremely serious charge coming from CIA employees, so why are they willing to put their heads in the guillotine at this point instead of much sooner? What has changed?

2. Why would these two CIA officers give this information to a guy writing a book instead of to the appropriate Congressional committee?

3. Why would this vital information suddenly be coming out just ahead of an election? Duh.

bush lied about wmd. what a suprise lol. the reason the two cia employees are talking now is that king george is about out of office and cant get them or there careers. one other point. no amount of true facts will convince a true bush believer. they are immune to seeing the truth.

So why, Vieira asked, are Suskind’s sources finally speaking out now, more than five years after the war began?

“Well, you know, a lot of them have been walking around with this lump in their chest for a couple of years — five years now,” Suskind replied. “And because they’re essentially free — they’re not the original source — they said, ‘Look, why hide now? Let’s trust the truth.’ ”

There is enough toothpaste out of the tube that this will be easy to get to the bottom of, if true.

Liberals will immediately believe anything negative about Bush. It's happened over and over again.

If it were about Obama, they would never believe anything negative, even if it happened right in front of them.

One just has to get accustomed to the double standard that exists in this country.

Conservatives will never believe anything negative about Bush. It's happened over and over again.

As far as double standards go, the last 8 years have been one giant double standard. Those in charge can do what they want contrary to the law, and those in charge will stonewall any investigation into the unlawful conduct. Don't you see a pattern of dishonesty here?

And, the evidence is overwhelming that we went to war when we didn't have to. How much do you need to see to finally believe that Bush lied and manipulated our country into fighting a war that didn't need to be fought?

"And, the evidence is overwhelming that we went to war when we didn't have to."

There has been no such evidence presented, only accusations from liberals.

That's why this alleged letter is of such importance. If true, it might be provable, and the guilty punished. If that's George Bush, I'll be all for hanging him on the White House front lawn, the location where they hide the Easter Eggs. Until proven, it the same old liberal crap.

I don't know if it's fair to call former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind a "liberal" but I too would want to see some collaborating evidence before believing this memo is some sort of smoking gun for an impeachable offense. George Tenet for one has denied the accusation.

It could well be that such a letter existed but was never used by the White House for any purpose. You know, the CIA does all kinds of nutty things that never see the light of day. Then again, one of the little eye-popping diversions of this nature during Watergate were faked cables proporting to link President John Kennedy to the assassination of Vientamese President Diem. I don't think these were ever used for any purpose, beyond Howard Hunt creating them, putting them in his White House safe, having them retrieved by John Dean, who gave the memos to L. Patrick Gray who burned them.

In any case, shouldn't someone at least investigate this?

Andrew

Deane, I do happen to think there is plenty of evidence showing Bush and Cheney chose to go to war while knowingly hyping a fear of Iraqi WMDs knowing the threat of them was extremely small if non-existent. And this has come not just from liberals, if you're willing to open your eyes a tad.

Andrew

Andrew, I think it's probably all true, I just don't think we should have the Salem Witch hunt all over in this day and age.

These guys have gone on the record, it shouldn't be hard to get them under oath before the appropriate jurisdiction, not some chat session with a liberal reporter.

Liberals will immediately believe anything negative about Bush.

So will Republicans now days.

Anyone else think that even if Obama is elected President, that the first thing he'll do is pardon Bush?

And another question for anyone who doesn't want to listen to something just because someone is promoting a book:
Have you ever bought something because you heard about it on a commercial?
Same principle.

No, I don't think Obama will pardon Bush. Perhaps Bush will pardon himself before he leaves office?

Andrew

"Perhaps Bush will pardon himself before he leaves office?"

Constitutionally, no can do.

When did that ever stop him?

"Constitutionally, no can do."

Like George W. Bush gives two shits about the Constitution. He's only concerned with either circumventing (if not completely ignoring) the Constitution, or writing intolerance and bigotry into the Constitution.

Terry Gross has an interview with Ron Suskind today on Fresh Air on OPB...

Andrew

Okay Bush is selling his Crawford ranch which will probably be purchased by the Hunt brothers as a quid pro quo as they have recently got the contract with the Kurds to take the oil from the North Iraq. With cash in hand Bush could leave the country if all hell broke loose or he could always do a Ken Lay.

The Hunt brothers have been ticked off since the Middle East Countries nationalized their wells, which included wells that the Hunt Family had drilled. So the Hunt Brothers have been going back after "Their" Oil ever since the 70's and their buddy Bush and Cheney delivered.

Thousands dead, but he got it done.

Your turn Deane.

"Like George W. Bush gives two shits about the Constitution. He's only concerned with either circumventing (if not completely ignoring) the Constitution, or writing intolerance and bigotry into the Constitution."

Yea, I know what you're talking about. But in this case he can't break the rules quite so easily. If McCain wins, Bush doesn't need to pardon himself because McSame will do it for him. If Obama wins, then any supposed "self-pardoning" is only as good as the next president's willingness to uphold such a blatently unconstitutional pardon. I'd like to think Obama wouldn't tolerate that kind of shit.

One scenario that is "just crazy enough, it might work!" would be for Bush to issue a blanket pardon to Cheney, then Bush resigns before Jan. 20th, which would allow President Cheney to give a blanket pardon to Bush. I don't know what the constitutional scholars would say, but I think this could technically be done.

The hatred and paranoia about President Bush is hilarious.

Really? That's it?

Geeze. What would it take for you to be even mildly outraged by something Bush has done?

And what if the accusation is true - by YOUR criteria - would you still say that?

What has Bush done that is unconstitutional?

"Your turn Deane."

With your imagination, Hollywood could use you. They've been pretty hard up for good fiction in the past few months.

"eeze. What would it take for you to be even mildly outraged by something Bush has done?"

Answer: perjury, a coverup and obstruction of justice.

"What has Bush done that is unconstitutional?"

Well, it can be said that making an executive decision to get rid of habeus corpus is unconstitutional. Warrantless wiretapping is definitely dancing on the line.

How about the invasion and occupation of Iraq? What basis did he really have to make such a move? He did it without Congress declaring war, and the intelligence he used to justify Congress releasing the funds has been proven to be inaccurate and all lies. That can be construed as unconstitutional.

Or how about having federal judges removed from their position because he didn't agree with their viewpoints, and using executive orders to protect those who removed the judges from testifying to Congress?

Shall I keep going?

"Let's impeach the President for lying
And misleading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door

Who's the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
They bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war

Let's impeach the President for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones

What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government's protection
Or was someone just not home that day?

Flip - Flop
Flip - Flop
Flip - Flop
Flip - Flop

Let's impeach the president for hijacking
Our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected

Thank god he's cracking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
There's lots of people looking at big trouble
But of course our president is clean.

Thank God"

Neil Young

What's hilarious is that anyone is surprised at the outrage that exists for Bush.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. Or you're just dumber than a box of rocks.

"Geeze. What would it take for you to be even mildly outraged by something Bush has done?"

Answer: perjury, a coverup and obstruction of justice.

So since those have not happened, you are fine with everything he's been doing and the way he's been doing it?

Holy fucking Hell!

I leave for weeks at a time and when I come back its the same little babies crying about Bushy.

Ok, now back to your bitch sessions...

You thought everyone would change their political stances because you left for two weeks? Why would they? We don't change our ideas just because you are around or not. Do you? Did you, on your two week vacation, change your mind about something? Or were you just trying to shame us for having a potentially legitimate gripe about The President Of The United States? It's not like we are battling about the price of watermelons. I think it's a fairly important point to try and get the truth from. You don't, obviously. But you are oh so above it all - because you are great.

Besides, you just jump in, strike a pose and never really offer anything to even consider other than you just letting us know that you are still here.

Neat. You win, darlin'.

mc74 said once again: "Holy fucking Hell! I leave for weeks at a time and when I come back its the same little babies crying about Bushy."

Every two weeks you do this. You're surprised at what has been going on here, then you insult us.

Man, I've seen less repetitive behavior in the Alzheimer's wing at my grandpa's nursing home.

"Shall I keep going?"

Not unless you actually come up with something unconstitutional. So far, it's the same old liberal baseless bitching.

Deane, why do you keep raising the bar higher and higher for a Bush impeachment? The Constitution itself does not require unconstitutional behavior to justify impeachment. At one point, you would have been satisfied with lawbreaking. Which, Bush has done (violated FISA laws by wiretapping without a court order, among other things).

Now it's unconstitutional behavior. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt for you, is it?

It's just anything to limit the damage to the GOP.

Ends justify means with that crowd.

I read something that said an impeachment hearing would be the best thing for Bush to have happen. This would give him the chance to clear his name, and clear his reputation. Being a man who is ultimately concerned with how history will judge him, Bush should welcome the opportunity. Otherwise a pall will hang over his presidency forever.

Here's the link.

"Now it's unconstitutional behavior."

If it were, the Democrats in Congress would be all over it.

This is actually from very old Democrat talking points memos. You must not be on the list to get the current stuff. The Democrats have shifted their focus to McCain and the election. That's where the action is. Liberals yapping about Bush is sort of like to those yapping little Chihuahua's that you just want to kick against the wall. A lot of noise, but not much else.

And you're like a fly I step on, wipe up off the floor with a tissue, and then flush down the toilet.

A worthless existence and a general nuisance.

Bush has multiple reasons to be impeached, every one of them more important than what Clinton got impeached for. The only reason he has not been impeached is thanks to the cowardly Republicans who have enabled and protected his lawbreaking in the name of party unity.

As they say, no one died when Clinton lied. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result of Bush's lies.

Deane, why would the Democrats go through with impeachment proceedings NOW? Four and a half months and Dubya is out of office anyways.

They have some things to think about which could well make them not do it:

-The Democrats could feasibly come out looking like crybabys, much like the GOP did with the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings. Bill Clinton came out the other end smelling like a rose, and the Republicans had egg on their face.

-What happens if Bush is removed from office? Dick Cheney. Even though it would be for a very short time, any lawmaker with a (D) behind their name recoils in horror at that thought.

-The mudslinging that could come from said proceedings could hinder their opportunity to win the White House with Barack Obama. I personally believe that Obama would stay out of the fray and continue to take the high road, but it could hurt his chances.

Vitalogy, the Democrats collectively are to blame for impeachment not being more prominent. Sure the leaders like Reid and Pelosi have rattled their sabres some, but the only Democrat to come out with actual articles of impeachment has been Dennis Kucinich, and those were against Cheney, not Bush himself.

Two separate issues here:

- Did Bush/Cheney commit impeachable offenses and/or punishable crimes?

- Should the Democrats in Congress pursue investigations now or perhaps later under an Obama justice dept (assuming he's elected)?

I think it's quite clear that Bush and Cheney's handling of WMDs and misleading the Congress and the American public in the lead-up to the Iraq War certainly rise to the level of "impeachable offense" - and more and more evidence of that comes out weekly.

But I still think the Democrats in the House should not vote to impeach them. A removal in a Senate trial is next to impossible. It would be a waste of resources and time and could actually make people think Bush and Cheney did nothing wrong if they are (surely) acquitted.

I think it's more feasible that an Obama justice department, if he is elected, might look into possible crimes committed in the lead up to the Iraq War. At that point, assuming Bush hasn't pardoned everyone, there would be no more BS claims of "executive privilege" whenever anyone who ever talked to the Bush Administration is to be questioned, and impeachment is no longer required to prosecute people.

Andrew

Obama might just be smarter than most of you liberals who want to wallow in the past. He might just decide to leave you whiners to sit around and grumble and instead focus his administration on moving ahead.

Deane, isn't prosecution of any crime "wallowing in the past?" Don't you believe in law and order in this country? I thought respect for law and order was a bedrock for you fascists?

Andrew

Unlike Republicans, Democrats can multitask.

Moving ahead and impeaching criminals would not be a problem for the liberal brain, whereas the conservative brain has problems doing anything more than breathing air and farting.

Why it's not going to happen is not because of the focus on the big prize (60 seats in the Senate AND The White House), rather it is because at the current Congressional ratio an impeachment proceeding would be blocked by the Republicans... unless of course enough of these emerging facts become entered into the courts records after subpoenas are issued and testimony given, but that process, too, is not only time consuming but also would be blocked by the vacuumheaded conservatives in Congress.

"Deane, isn't prosecution of any crime "wallowing in the past?" Don't you believe in law and order in this country? I thought respect for law and order was a bedrock for you fascists? "

It's only your opinion that a crime was committed. Those in a position of knowledge don't seem to think that's a very strong case. It all goes back to liberals thinking they are so right that anyone who looks at things differently is totally in the wrong.

Hey, if it doesn't pan out legally against Bush, then so be it. But wanting some legitimate questions answered - TRUTHFULLY - does not equal whining or bitching. ( I know it's fun to make us look crazy for wanting it. But I can deal with that too ). It's the very system we have in place to GET the truth. If the burden cannot be met, then I accept that. But every single legal issue that needs to be addressed starts with someone saying something out loud and getting the ball rolling.

This is not some meaningless and falsely motivated witch hunt. It's kind of a big deal. Quit trying to minimize the implication, impact or consequences of a sitting President taking us to war on potentially baseless and outright lying about the facts. If it doesn't stand up, then I will back off and join those that say that it's a fabrication.

But as Deane recently noted; Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Deane writes:
It's only your opinion that a crime was committed. Those in a position of knowledge don't seem to think that's a very strong case.

No, it is not just my opinion. I assume you are only talking about fellow fascists like yourself who think no crime has been committed - not surprising, since you always protect your own. But believe it or not, there are other right-wingers (e.g. Pat Buchanan) who think Bush should be impeached, which proves that not all right-wingers are complete morons.

Andrew

So, Pat Buchanan is your new poster child?

No, Buchanan is still enough of a lunatic to make your side proud - but at least he gets that Bush has committed crimes.

Andrew

Buchanan is probably not the greatest source to quote. Most Republicans ignore him and pretend he doesn't exist. Sort of like Jimmie Carter's brother.

" Buchanan is probably not the greatest source to quote."

Who is?

( Again, not rhetorical ).

You can help.
Do your part...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUuhKJYFUfg

(NOT Rick Roll)