Home

Bush-Aznar Smoking Gun

Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-09-26 21:07.

And Yet Another Smoking Gun from War Lies File:

As if anyone cares, after all these pieces of evidence...

With the Senate Intelligence Committee on permanent vacation...

With Pelosi's table holding no room for impeachment...

ABC Reports:

"Weeks before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush told Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that the attack would go forward with or without a U.N. resolution condemning the government of Saddam Hussein, according to a transcript of the private meeting obtained by a Spanish newspaper....In the private conversation at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, Feb. 22, 2003, Bush does not contradict his public statements on Iraq [Hah! Read the previous sentence of this article. Or the following sentence.], but he is much more direct and specific. Speaking to reporters at his ranch publicly later that same day, Bush left the impression that an invasion of Iraq was not inevitable."

Here is the Spanish report: http://tinyurl.com/2e5xds

and transcript: http://tinyurl.com/2fbjhy

In the Spanish version, assuming I'm reading it correctly, we learn that February 22, 2003, at Crawford (a week after the world's largest ever public demonstrations in the US, Spain, and other nations opposing the war), Bush told Aznar privately that he had determined already to attack Iraq and would have troops in Baghdad by the end of March.

Here are some bits translated into English by Harper's.

Here are Juan Cole's comments.

Here are major sections translated into English.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

News Flash...Bush Lied!!!

Submitted by Highlander on Wed, 2007-09-26 21:24.

I am not mocking the substance of the article..more "proof"
is more "proof"..perhaps for a criminal trial.
But this was obviously his intention before he got crowned
by his less-than Supreme Court F-ups in 2000.
Who is still supporting this tragic and avoidable collapse
of a Constitutional governemnt? Guess...the Government!!!
and who still thinks GB should not be Impeached?
The Governemnt! What do you think America?

Do you want Nurse Ratchet to be the next U.E.?

The lesser of two "evils"? What are we taling about?
See Pelosi on CNN...10 years Bush style..or 10 years Pelosi
style...notice she never says no involvement!

Now could this be about the oil? America..I have one word
for this...Hydrogen...we should not be fighting over oil!
It is like two heroin addicts shooting it out over the last
dime bag. It is INSANE! Call it what it is people.. MADNESS

Sometimes it comes from the left sometimes from the right....
It is still MADNESS.

IMPEACH REMOVE ARREST AND INDICT

»

Begging to Differ on Impeachment

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2007-09-27 08:08.

To Our Reps: Begging to Differ On Impeachment

Here in Vermont, we are fortunate to have national representatives that have the interests of ordinary citizens at heart. (This is not something to take lightly; standards of democracy have devolved so that we all accept that public officials care more about their own fortunes than the people they are duty-bound to serve.) My big complaint, however, is that our reps brush off the matter of impeachment. I’d like to challenge them on the three most-cited reasons not to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney:

1) We’ve got less than a year-and-a-half of Bush’s presidency, so let’s focus on the future. The implied argument is: what damage can Bush do in 500 days? And the answer, alas, is a lot. Right now, the administration and its think-tank lackeys are spoiling for a war with Iran. Bush knows that the people don’t want war with Iran, so his inner circle is devising ways to sell it; public opinion is merely an impediment to Bush’s goals, not a reason to rethink them. However, impeachment proceedings would constrain Bush/Cheney’s capacity to launch into a war that everyone knows would be a bloody disaster.
Another reason the run-out-the-clock excuse doesn’t work: We are at the “11th Hour” in terms of facing climate change. The world cannot afford seventeen more months of inactivity on the U.S.’s part.
2) We don’t have the votes. My response is: since when are votes counted before a vote is taken? I have always understood a representative’s mandate to be: 1) speaking up for the concerns of the district or state; and 2) pursuing legislation according to his or her conscience within the context of the U.S. Constitution. I doubt the Founding Fathers had applied game theory in mind. Our Congressman and Senators acknowledge that President Bush has violated the Constitution many times over. Regardless of the political landscape, representatives who believe this should not shrug off impeachment. Let the issue come to a vote—and let members of the Congress and Senate answer to their constituents.
3) Impeachment would distract from the Legislative Branch’s work. I would buy this if the Congress or Senate were making progress on key issues like bringing an end to the war in Iraq and caring for its veterans, providing quality healthcare and education for all, and working to curb climate change. But the government seems virtually paralyzed—despite the Democratic majority and Bush’s dismal approval ratings. I would argue that no forward-looking legislation can take place until impeachment is grappled with in earnest.

Impeachment is the tool our Constitution has given us to restore the rule of law in the face of a runaway Executive Branch. It is an integral part of our “checks and balances” and perhaps the only means of keeping those who hold high office accountable. The cost of not pursuing impeachment is setting a precedent where it’s okay to lie and spy and generally trample on our laws.
One of the most cogent arguments for impeachment I’ve heard comes from a friend of mine. “I hate to think of what not impeaching the president and vice president says to young people,” she said incredulously. “It would be like saying, we know someone robbed a bank but we’re not going to arrest him because it’s not convenient.”
We all know that this administration has, so to speak, “robbed the bank”. The question remains: Are we willing to stand here and give them what’s left in our pockets as well?

Judith D. Schwartz
vermontpeacetrain op-ed
Speaking for Peace and Justice
Bennington (Vermont) Banner, September 25, 2007

»

Who does ABC think they're fooling?

Submitted by John Perry on Wed, 2007-09-26 22:59.

They run with a Bush quote that anybody who can read can see is a direct contradiction to his pre-invasion public statements, and then they say that he didn't contradict himself?

We certainly didn't need any more proof that George lied, but perhaps we could use more such examples proving MSM complicity in Bushco's crimes to share with our sleepwalking friends.

Keep up the excellent work, David!

Video Commentary You'll Never See in the MSM:
johnperryonline.com
NOW PLAYING: Bush Kicks IranScam into High Gear

»

California Traitors

Submitted by Robert Noval on Thu, 2007-09-27 07:49.

bush initially came into the Republican presidential race already determined to "get Saddam".

So say Osama Siblani:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/11/1449249

and Mickey Herskowitz:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/06/20/why_george_went_to_war.php

Meanwhile, Israel wanted Iran attacked BEFORE Iraq.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH30Ak04.html

Micheal Ledeen confirms that was the neocon plan as well.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/21/michael-ledeen/

But simian decision making prevaled; bush, after all, is the "decider".

Yet, Pelosi, mock-self-righteously

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/25/sitroom.02.html

continues to insist impeachment is "off the table"; that she, and the other War Party members that wear the "Democrats" label are helpless to put a stop to the war; that the the war, now every bit as much her doing as bush's, is the Republican's war.

If you're into blame assignment, the voters in the 8th congressional district of California committed treason at the polls in '06.

Both the Green and Libertarian parties presented them with overtly anti-war candidates. But 8th district voters preferred their obligations as sheep to their obligations as human beings.

They'll get another chance in '08. This time they'll have Cindy's name-recognition with which to identify. Hopefully, that will serve to slap them out of their stupor.

All I can say the Cal Dist 8 voters is again, last time you went to the polls you didn't vote; you committed treason.

Get it right this time.

---The Bikemessenger

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.