Advertisement
"It's not about the sex, it's about the lying."
"Integrity matters."
"We must restore the dignity of the office."
"Truth is the glue that holds government together." Gerald Ford 1974
"We found the weapons of mass destruction." George W. Bush (5/29/03 television interview)
"Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be 'a high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner for any purpose." John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon.
"Manipulation or deliberate misuse" of intelligence data, a.k.a. lying, as an excuse to go to war is also murder. In order to undertake something as drastic as war, there must be a justification approaching certainty, since "Whoops! Sorry about that!" is no defense to murder. Spin and lie until your pants ignite and your nose is ten feet long, but unjustified war is ALWAYS murder. It doesn't even matter if WMD are eventually found, for when the takeover of Iraq took place, the Bush administration clearly did not know that Saddam Hussein still possessed "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), because, not only have they not found the mythical massive stockpiles of WMD, they have not produced any of the conclusory evidence of the existence of WMD that they claimed they had prior to the invasion (but, not wanting to alert Saddam to our intelligence sources, supposedly couldn't produce for public scrutiny at the time). Now virtually a moot point since Bush's own CIA has made public its official finding that there was no WMD in Iraq.
The 30,000 warheads, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulism toxin that President Bush (endorsed by statements from Colin Powell to the UN) said that Iraq possessed were already accounted for at the time those figures were cited. The source relied upon by Bush for those amounts, defector Hussein Kamel, also stated that those same "weapons of mass destruction" were completely destroyed in 1991 (see Newsweek 3/3/03), were backed-up by the reports and findings of U.N. inspectors, and no one in the Bush administration had any information that suggested otherwise. Bush similarly misused the same information in his statements on Oct. 7, 2002 that Iraq had "a massive stockpile of biological weapons" and "thousands of tons of chemical agents," and that it was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," and in his claim on March 17 that "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Because the very intelligence that they relied on also evidenced that those very weapons had been destroyed, claims by the Bush regime that Iraq unequivocally possessed significant quantities of WMD were not mistakes, they were clear, blatant, in your face, bald-faced lies.
The "mobile biological weapons labs" turned out to be units sold to Iraq by Great Britain for the purpose of inflating artillery balloons with hydrogen . Alleged attempts by Iraq to acquire "yellowcake uranium" from Niger were based upon documents known by the Bush administration to be forgeries (when former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson, made this fact public, the Bush administration retaliated by "outing" his CIA operative wife and "WMD" expert, an impeachable violation of federal law).
The icing on the cake of lies was Bush's ultimatum to Saddam: that he produce the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Regime knew he didn't have, leave (which Bush knew he didn't have the legal authority to require), and that he had 48 hours to comply. Instead of lying so that Bush could allow his corporate cronies to monopolize Iraq financed by the theft of taxpayer money, he could have instigated a war crimes tribunal against Saddam instead, which would of convicted him and subsequently sent in an international force that would have overwhelmed Saddam with little to no casualties for Americans. Saddam probably would have fled without firing a shot if faced with such a prospect. Nothing, not even lies, advanced by any of Bush's many apologists lend any support to Bush's 48 hour ultimatum with its bogus imminence.
Clinton was nailed for his wavering on what "is" was. Bush's lies were not based on an interpretation of language. They were based instead on definite, specific, clear "mis-statements" (misrepresentations, prevarications, and untruths, i.e., LIES).
Clinton lied about committing adultery, something that virtually all spouses do when trying to protect their marriages, yet this excuse held no water with those Clinton-haters who claimed that Presidents should be held to a zero tolerance standard when it came to lying, and that they were not sexless voyeurs, spies, and peeping Tom gossips, but merely good citizens saving us from a lying President. Presidential candidate and actual election winner, Al Gore, was savagely disparaged with false accusations of lies that were not anywhere near as severe as the actual lies proffered by this false President. How fitting that a President whose very occupation of the White House is based upon a lie (that he was elected instead of selected in direct violation of the Constitution) should be an unrepentant liar himself. But where are our self-anointed guardians of morality now that their President is caught lying, not lying about his private affairs and other wrongdoings (which are probably quite extensive, from DWI to drug use, and being AWOL from his air national guard assignment, but a corporate media appreciative of having one of their own in office isn't about to ruin a good thing by exposing their captive audience to them) but about life and death matters, actual high crimes and misdemeanors? Could it be that they, too, are liars? That it WASN'T about the lying afterall? There is a word for those attacking others for a misdeed (lying) that they themselves are guilty of: hypocrite. They deserve the same humiliation and career damage, plus an extra serving for retribution, that they heaped upon their hapless victims.
This has nothing to do with aiding and abetting the "enemy" (Iraq), but everything to do with betraying the American people. Those who knowingly aid and abet that betrayal are the real traitors, not those who refuse to be an active participant in the deception of the American public and the international community. The only reason for the Bush administration to lie to the public was to conceal motives too unpleasant, and probably too criminal, for the public to tolerate.
Finally, we should take the advice of President Bush: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." President George W. Bush, from speech shown on CBS news (10/27/04)
Thank you,
Mike Richardson
"Integrity matters."
"We must restore the dignity of the office."
"Truth is the glue that holds government together." Gerald Ford 1974
"We found the weapons of mass destruction." George W. Bush (5/29/03 television interview)
"Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be 'a high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner for any purpose." John Dean, former counsel to President Nixon.
"Manipulation or deliberate misuse" of intelligence data, a.k.a. lying, as an excuse to go to war is also murder. In order to undertake something as drastic as war, there must be a justification approaching certainty, since "Whoops! Sorry about that!" is no defense to murder. Spin and lie until your pants ignite and your nose is ten feet long, but unjustified war is ALWAYS murder. It doesn't even matter if WMD are eventually found, for when the takeover of Iraq took place, the Bush administration clearly did not know that Saddam Hussein still possessed "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), because, not only have they not found the mythical massive stockpiles of WMD, they have not produced any of the conclusory evidence of the existence of WMD that they claimed they had prior to the invasion (but, not wanting to alert Saddam to our intelligence sources, supposedly couldn't produce for public scrutiny at the time). Now virtually a moot point since Bush's own CIA has made public its official finding that there was no WMD in Iraq.
The 30,000 warheads, 500 tons of chemical weapons, 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulism toxin that President Bush (endorsed by statements from Colin Powell to the UN) said that Iraq possessed were already accounted for at the time those figures were cited. The source relied upon by Bush for those amounts, defector Hussein Kamel, also stated that those same "weapons of mass destruction" were completely destroyed in 1991 (see Newsweek 3/3/03), were backed-up by the reports and findings of U.N. inspectors, and no one in the Bush administration had any information that suggested otherwise. Bush similarly misused the same information in his statements on Oct. 7, 2002 that Iraq had "a massive stockpile of biological weapons" and "thousands of tons of chemical agents," and that it was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," and in his claim on March 17 that "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Because the very intelligence that they relied on also evidenced that those very weapons had been destroyed, claims by the Bush regime that Iraq unequivocally possessed significant quantities of WMD were not mistakes, they were clear, blatant, in your face, bald-faced lies.
The "mobile biological weapons labs" turned out to be units sold to Iraq by Great Britain for the purpose of inflating artillery balloons with hydrogen . Alleged attempts by Iraq to acquire "yellowcake uranium" from Niger were based upon documents known by the Bush administration to be forgeries (when former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson, made this fact public, the Bush administration retaliated by "outing" his CIA operative wife and "WMD" expert, an impeachable violation of federal law).
The icing on the cake of lies was Bush's ultimatum to Saddam: that he produce the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush Regime knew he didn't have, leave (which Bush knew he didn't have the legal authority to require), and that he had 48 hours to comply. Instead of lying so that Bush could allow his corporate cronies to monopolize Iraq financed by the theft of taxpayer money, he could have instigated a war crimes tribunal against Saddam instead, which would of convicted him and subsequently sent in an international force that would have overwhelmed Saddam with little to no casualties for Americans. Saddam probably would have fled without firing a shot if faced with such a prospect. Nothing, not even lies, advanced by any of Bush's many apologists lend any support to Bush's 48 hour ultimatum with its bogus imminence.
Clinton was nailed for his wavering on what "is" was. Bush's lies were not based on an interpretation of language. They were based instead on definite, specific, clear "mis-statements" (misrepresentations, prevarications, and untruths, i.e., LIES).
Clinton lied about committing adultery, something that virtually all spouses do when trying to protect their marriages, yet this excuse held no water with those Clinton-haters who claimed that Presidents should be held to a zero tolerance standard when it came to lying, and that they were not sexless voyeurs, spies, and peeping Tom gossips, but merely good citizens saving us from a lying President. Presidential candidate and actual election winner, Al Gore, was savagely disparaged with false accusations of lies that were not anywhere near as severe as the actual lies proffered by this false President. How fitting that a President whose very occupation of the White House is based upon a lie (that he was elected instead of selected in direct violation of the Constitution) should be an unrepentant liar himself. But where are our self-anointed guardians of morality now that their President is caught lying, not lying about his private affairs and other wrongdoings (which are probably quite extensive, from DWI to drug use, and being AWOL from his air national guard assignment, but a corporate media appreciative of having one of their own in office isn't about to ruin a good thing by exposing their captive audience to them) but about life and death matters, actual high crimes and misdemeanors? Could it be that they, too, are liars? That it WASN'T about the lying afterall? There is a word for those attacking others for a misdeed (lying) that they themselves are guilty of: hypocrite. They deserve the same humiliation and career damage, plus an extra serving for retribution, that they heaped upon their hapless victims.
This has nothing to do with aiding and abetting the "enemy" (Iraq), but everything to do with betraying the American people. Those who knowingly aid and abet that betrayal are the real traitors, not those who refuse to be an active participant in the deception of the American public and the international community. The only reason for the Bush administration to lie to the public was to conceal motives too unpleasant, and probably too criminal, for the public to tolerate.
Finally, we should take the advice of President Bush: "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." President George W. Bush, from speech shown on CBS news (10/27/04)
Thank you,
Mike Richardson