Biden: Impeachment if Bush bombs Iran

The President made the following statements in justifying military action against Iraq

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people

To attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors

You really believe those statements were lies..and the President should be impeached? Really?

They're not lies, they're obvious truths.

The problem is, they have nothing to do with Bush's lies, like "Saddam has recently sought signficant quanties of uranium from Africa".

LOL

The quote was this

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The British Butler Report

We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa'….. was well-founded.

Next

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

which was never a real threat

Called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

his people maybe......

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people

which has been oh so successful so far, right?

To attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors

They must have hid those in the TV stations we were bombing, huh?

See, you say next, but we're still in Iraq, and what the hell is the Butler report?

Assuming you are correct on all points ...... then the President should have been impeached for this.

All statements you so brilliantly refuted are in the speech.

Happy

Open the link in 3.3

I did, and by the way, you shouldn't rely on links and make everyone else read things. Use your own arguments with your own words.

Clinton knew we lacked the hard evidence of Saddam's weapons, which is why he didn't invade. Bush also knew we lacked the hard evidence of Saddam's weapons, but he invaded anyway because it just felt like a good idea. THAT is the difference, that is Bush's crime.

Oh ..now I understand..killing Iraqis with bombs is okay...killing them with ground troops is not okay.

I get it now.

BTW..even after Clinton left office he believed Iraq had WMDs. So what do you know that he did not?

Also, the quotes I used from the Butler report are pages 123-125...does that help.

. . .you shouldn't rely on links and make everyone else read things.

Translation: I don't read anything or have any evidence to support my positions so I just pull stuff out of my ass and expect everyone to believe it.

Oh Bill, I sure do, but this isn't a jury trial - there exists a correct answer out there that does not change by a bunch of people posting hyperlinks.

Bush invaded Iraq because he felt like it, who made up his mind first and searched for reasoning second. Him and his Administration are attempting to do the same thing with Iran.

And your opinion is based upon what evidence?

The fact that no WMD's were ever found is a big piece, for starters. The fact that he presented an under-achieving Iraqi grad student as Curveball, the smoking-gun-defector as proof of Iraq's weapons program is another big piece.

Okay Iraq never had WMDs. So who fed Clinton all the lies so that Clinton would bomb Iraq?

There was a line... "How do we know that Saddam had WMD's? Because we still had the receipts."

The fact that the U.S. gave him WMD's - the very same used to kill the Kurds, by the way - during the Iraq-Iran war was a good indication to watch Saddam, and watch him hard. We had strong suspicions, but we did not have the smoking gun. Bush acted as if we did. THAT is the difference.

attacking iraq was a violation of international law, us treaties, and their fore us law.
as far as lies.. they told senators about confirmation on intelligent like curveball that wasnt there.
they denide that their was disagreement on the evidence.. and we can go on but someone i doubt independantvoter would be independant enough to allow the truth through his bush stained glasses.
But besides for that the gao ruled several laws that were broken by this admin from the hatch act.. to outing the cia officier, then their is disseminating infor to the public with the fake news, or the facke reporter, gay porn star jack gannon. illegal spying that started prior to 9-11
my dog doesnt have a law degree but can come up with 10 more things on the list.
dont pretend there isnt more than enough to start impeachment proceeding..
starting impeachment proceddings is a way to get more info.. it doesnt mean he will be convicted of any crime. so why yous guys against it?

If it is so blatant and obvious why has nothing happened?

JoulesBeef

Did Clinton violate International Law when he bombed Iraq?

LOL. I've been all through over and around this about a thousand times before but here we go again.

For all practical intents and purposes the CIA was extrapolating out of its ass during the runup to the war based on the knowledge they had or thought they had when the UNSCOM teams left in '98. As Bob Baer has pointed out, there was no new intel and the CIA was completely unable to penetrate Saddam's regime.

The Germans warned the CIA about "Curveball" as recounted by Tyler Drumheller but neither Tenet or McLauglhin ever managed to convey these doubts to the president.

Drumheller scoffed at claims by Tenet and McLauglin that they were unaware of concerns about Curveball's credibility. He said he was disappointed that the two former CIA leaders would resort to a "bureaucratic defense" that they never got a formal memo expressing doubts about the defector.

Some have claimed Naji Sabri told the CIA prior to the invasion that there weren't any nuclear or bio weapons left but that there were some leftover chemical weapons. Only problem with this little tale are a few glaring matters. One, Sabri was a relative newcomer to the inner circle of the government. Two, he was a notorious liar and was also on the payroll of French intelligence which considering the Chirac government's opposition to the war would have made him suspect. And three, his claims never made it to the White House through either Tenet or McLaughlin no matter how much that prick Sid Blumenthal wants to insist, based on hearsay, that it did.

And we don't even want to get into the case of the bunglers in GlamorGal Val Wilson's WMD Non-Prolif division who were still giving the Niger yellowcake story credence long after State's INR had shot it full of holes. That's why Armitage, arch foe of Cheney and the neocons, "outed" her.

The CIA needs to be burned to the ground and restarted.

True

Thats nice..but does not answer the question.

Matthew Rothschild, Editor of the Progressive Magazine, writes (An Attack That Makes No Sense, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 1998) , "The U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq is an act of war not sanctioned by international law or by the U.S. Constitution. Within 72 hours of his grand jury appearance in August, Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. Now, the day before he faced impeachment, he attacks Baghdad and other locations in Iraq. Our founders gave Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has not issued such a declaration in this instance. According to international law, a country can take unilateral action against another country only for the purpose of self-defense. But this bombing attack can hardly be called an act of self-defense. Saddam has not attacked the United States and does not pose an imminent threat to us."

One last ime..Do you believe Clinton's bombing of Iraq violated international law?

Babin

If it is so blatant and obvious why has nothing happened?

That is the saddest part of the whole thing. The politicians are calling for Bush's impeachment only after seeing that the issue is a hot cake in the election scenario. I would term Biden's statement as opportunistic he could have joined Kucinich, he could have said this then.

Bush did violate the International law since he went to war without the approval of the UN.

Iraq War was Illegal and Breached U.N. Charter, Says Annan

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Mr. Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

"..Do you believe Clinton's bombing of Iraq violated international law? "

Independent, are you one of those people who screamed how wrong it was for Clinton to bomb Iraq back then, calling it "wag the dog", but now you are FOR the same action merely b/c it's Bush and he's your man?

Speech by GWB pre invasion :

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites.

Now, for a reality check:

From July 1999 through March 2000, Duelfer and his U.N. team were essentially put in cold storage by the Clinton administration. Most U.S. intelligence to UNSCOM stopped. No more satellite surveillance, no more USAF U-2 spy flights over Iraq.

Duelfer and company were relegated to their U.N. offices and spent almost the following year analyzing and re-analyzing materials obtained from year's past.

The situation prompted Duelfer to confess to this reporter hat "UNSCOM was imploding" and that the U.N.'s weapons hunt "was no longer on Washington's radar scope."

Duelfer, like his U.N. predecessors, could also find no convincing proof that Saddam had resurrected his secret WMD programs.

In short, the White House decided the "Iraq" problem was to be put on "indefinite hold." Duelfer, growing increasingly frustrated by the White House's moves, eventually turned over the reins to veteran Swedish diplomat Hans Blix, in March 2000.

Blix also became frustrated by the White House's Iraq policy, but then came the 2000 elections and the attacks of 9/11.

"That changed everything," Blix once confided.

What it did not change was one important fact: Saddam no longer had any significant WMD and hadn't for almost 10 years. A fact known to senior officials of the Clinton White House but never publicly acknowledged.

Back to Bush:

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.
Where are they, George?
What are the Satellite pictures of?.....Camp David?

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us.
Facing clear evidence of peril, [?] we cannot wait for the final proof [How about at least some preliminary proof?] -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. ......

shouldnt we use the 1% docturnin on him..
if there is a 1% chance bush will bomb iran we should hang him

Assuming you qualify our presence in Iraq WWIII? Agreed it is a large scale war but there aren't enough countries involved to make a WW. WWII didn't get that label for quite a while. It's our mess.

"[We would be] guilty of great [error] in [our] conduct toward other nations [if we endeavored] to force liberty on [our] neighbors in [our] own form." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jun 24, 1793.

"Give us peace till our revenues are liberated from debt, and then, if war be necessary, it can be carried on without a new tax or loan, and during peace we may chequer [British spelling of checker] our whole country with canals, roads, etc. This is the object to which all our endeavors should be directed." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Leiper, 1808

"We have borne patiently a great deal of wrong, on the consideration that if nations go to war for every degree of injury, there would never be peace on earth. But when patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, [our] resistance [to it] becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to Mme de Stael, 1807.

The only reason they haven't gone to war with Iran yet is that they haven't yet been able to manufacture a convincing BS story yet, but it's not for lack of trying.

Tryin' n lyin'........ and they're still at it.

wilmasway -
Let me attempt at translating your elequent comment.

Apparently you "is" a strong believer in politics. According to you the "house of Representatives has always been the presidents boss." By this do you mean the HOR instructs the President on his decisions, specifically here military related decisions? The way I understand it the President is the Commander in Chief...

You make a second insightful statement further into your Hemingway-esque dialog, "you all don't care about us American people all you all want is money..."
Could you please define "you all." You seem to infer that the "you all" are not Americans themselves which seems confusing to me. Can you also support the claim that "all you all want is money?" What money are these people taking? Where is it coming from?

"i feel that it don't matter what we say the man," I first must say I love the use of your pause here with the "," after "man." This pause makes a strong impact on refering to Bush (I assume) as "the man." Brilliant!
You state here, wilmasway, that your voice is not being heard. Have you written your Congressman? Have you not received a response? Do you activily protest?

"remember a wild coward president behind the desk?..." - I have no idea what this word combination is referring to.

"when you represent the people you represent the people, and not do what you want to do..." I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

I'm with Wilma. The savagery, inhumanity and illegality of the current administration have been right under our noses for a very long time now.

There is an expeditous process for cleaning house (and please don't drag Clinton into the current series of fiascoes-- it's a cheap jab and won't get us anywhere in the here-and-now). It's called impeachment. Impeach Cheney first and then Bush.

That criminal cabal in the White House has lied, violated international law, depleted the economy, spent our taxpayer dollars on endless and bloody war(s) abroad while neglecting our domestic crises, killed what some are citing as 1,000,000 Iraqis and destroyed the lives of American soldiers--the body count is much higher than the official reports would have us believe--and those rich, white bigwigs STILL are not held accountable.

As for Biden's remark. Too little too late sprang to mind, too, KF. Why wait for another fiasco when we can easily prevent it now?

As for Bill Harrison's smug assertion that an attack on Iran simply won't happen--hey, Bill, none of us want it to happen. But if you, in your wisdom, have so blithely ignored the current ratcheting up of White House rhetoric--eerily similar to the rhetoric used before the invasion of Iraq--then you're missing something.

By the way, I could give a bigger hoot about those insider friends of yours at the CIA. You know, sometimes the administration even leaves THOSE guys out of the loop.

Fiddle while Rome burns, Bill. And if you don't know how to fiddle, dig out your kazoo.

I'm glad your not my lawyer. You should not have voted your own comment up.

Sec 3 paragraph seven;

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present

Go Back To School......articles of impeachment can only originate in the House. The trial is held in the Senate.

Biden as already decided to vote guilty in the trial BEFORE hearing the evidence?

And the House has already submitted two articles of impeachment, and now wait for the Senate to move on them. You have been schooled.

I must have missed that House vote affirming those articles of impeachment. So when does the Senate trial start?

Biden apparently is either ignorant or contemptuous of the Constitution. Presumably a legal expert will inform him that as a senator, he has no authority to "move to impeach" anyone. That power rests solely with the House.

And Biden has no allies in the House? I think he knew perfectly well what he was saying.

But by all means... feel free to muddy the waters.

And the House has already submitted two articles of impeachment, and now wait for the Senate to move on them. You have been schooled.

I must have missed that House vote affirming those articles of impeachment. So when does the Senate trial start?

Submitted, Bill. As of November 6, the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

H.RES.799
Title: Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 11/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.333
Latest Major Action: 11/6/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL ACTIONS:
11/6/2007 2:35pm:
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H12783-12786, H12786-12788; text of measure as introduced: CR H12783-12785)
11/6/2007 2:54pm:
Mr. Hoyer moved to table the measure.
11/6/2007 4:02pm:
On motion to table the measure Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 162 - 251 (Roll no. 1037). (consideration: CR H12785-12786)
11/6/2007 4:02pm:
Mr. Hoyer moved to refer to Judiciary.
11/6/2007 4:22pm:
The previous question on the motion was agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 194 (Roll No. 1038). (consideration: CR H12787)
11/6/2007 4:31pm:
On motion to refer Agreed to by recorded vote: 218 - 194 (Roll no. 1039).
11/6/2007:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

One can always hope.

Spit in one hand and wish in the other and see what you get first, Rebecca ;>0

BTW, my $100 wager that the US will not bomb Iran before the end of the president's term still stands. If you win, I'll donate my losings to you or the candidate/cause of your choice. If I win, you have to buy $100 worth of shares in "big oil".

You got it, KF. Goddam BC is doing the best they can to give the game away to those skolar-athaleets from Bleaksburg.