War Accountability At Home

I fail to understand why we tout Israel's "introspections" whenever they botch their PR campaign for military aggression. It would be one thing if introspection led to thinking/finding alternatives to wrecking homes and killing civilians in the territories; instead of merely castigating Israeli leadership for not being more efficient in demolishing infrastructure and lives. Bringing this line of thought to US actions, our introspection should be about what type of a return do we get as result of our military actions. If all we have done is made the hornet's nest bigger, then introspection should be about how do cooperate as potential common stakeholders with the Arab world. Accountability must be about punitive repercussions for those who- by their policy decisions and military execution- killed so many people. But for the actions of the chicken-hawks, so many lives could have been saved and we really could have changed hearts and minds. Instead, every "architect" of the war was exculpated, except for lower level functionaries.

It's interesting to hear the clamor against the so-called war (which was really an invasion). There was plenty of protest--but not by the vast majority of the press, the Congress or the American people. It was the "loony left", as we have been called, who got it entirely right while the rest of you got it entirely wrong. We were called traitors for calling George Bush and Company liars. Where were the investigative reporters or the truth squads, who should have been running down the facts? While we marched in the streets by the millions, the press, Congress and the American people were falling in behind the Bushies like good little patriotic children afraid to open their mouths. Yes, the Bush crowd, the press and Congress should be held accountable; but what does it matter to the thousands who are dead? Shame on you all.

Mary,

20 20 hindsight always has the best focus. But if your still bushing the Bush lied people died mantra how do you expect to be taken seriously.

It was interesting that a show about accountability spent 99% of the time avoiding holding Bush accountable for any thing. In classic conservative style, Ken Adelman spent the time creating a different reality of America. In this situation, he had to show that Isarel is wrong so he referred to them as "socialists". This was the first time I have ever heard a conservative call Isarel anything but "the only democratic government in the middle East". Friends before fores when they disagree with you. And to compare those random publications to the formal hearing in Isarel was a joke. I was very disapppoint that Tom Ashbrook was not more forceful in holding Adelman accountable for continuing to spread misinformation. The people who usually read these public books like Cobra II are people in the media and liberals. The reason Bush still has a 30% favorable rating is that conservates do not read these books. They listen to Rush's radio show or Fox T.V. and become convinced that books like Cobra II are fiction.
A month ago, the vice president appeared on Fox T.V. to defend his belief that Sadam did have WMDs. This is less than 1 month ago. From the mouth of the Vice President. Accountability? Give me a break.

In regards to impeachment, why do you continue to listen to reporters who make the claim that "the public does not want to go through such an ordeal". That is B.S. Clinton's impeached was annoying because it was based on a stupid charge. The impeachment clause was made for Bush, that is our nation's version of a vote of no-confidence. I am tired of reporters pretending to speak for Americans.

The list of charges for impeachment:

1) Incompetence: Katrina
2) Incompetence: attacking the wrong country
3) Incompetence: failing to protect our military
4) Signing statements
5) Treason: outing a CIA officer
6) Making up facts
7) Incompetence: millions of dollars unaccounted for
8) No-bid contracts to Hallerburton
9) Incompetence: spending our money like it grows on trees
10) No accountability to the people, congress, the senate etc.
I'm sure that I am missing some things

I will be more than happy to spend 3 months impeaching Bush in order to protect America from him.

P.S. the best part of the show was calling someone in Isarel and asking them to judge our current administration. The same Isarel that our boys and girls of the military were sent to the middle east to protect. The same Isarel that we send billions of dollars to each year. What do you expect this person to say? Bush sucks? A complete joke.

Capt Seaweed,

It's impossible to take someone seriously who at this point still thinks Bush did not lie. The evidence is overwhelming on multiple counts. Here's just one:

6 October 2002: George Tenet personally instructs the White House to have George Bush remove the "Uranium from Africa" claim from his 7 October speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, because the claim was considered weak on evidence.

January 2003: Prior to the State of the Union speech, the National Intelligence Council sends a memo to the White House; it states that the "Uranium from Africa" claim is baseless.

13 January 2003: The President's Bureau of Intelligence at the State Department sends an email to colleagues stating that the basis for the "Uranium from Africa" claim is a hoax.

28 January 2003:Despite being told specifically not to make the claim in a prior speech, President George W. Bush makes the "Uranium from Africa" claim anyway before congress in his constitutionally required state of the union speech.

Not only is this lie worthy of an impeachment trial, but it's an indictable crime that should result in a criminal trial.

Anetta,
How sad that you have come to believe that lying under oath is a stupid charge and is acceptable behavior. Truth under oath is the one and only factor that insures that justice will done.

The reason that Bush still has a 30% approval rating is that 30% of the people who take the time to listen to both sides made an informed decision to continue support.

When you look at the stat that 34% of democrates polled think Bush had prior knowlege to 9/11 and let it happened anyway and another 27% say they are not sure it speaks volumes to a confused and uninformed populace that forms opinions based on sound bites and propaganda than clear thinking and educated analysis.

Riley,

I agree that it is unfortunate that Bush would reference a British Intel report rather than take the advice of his own CIA Director. The case for taking down Sadam was more than justified on so many other points. Obviously with the clarity of 20 20 hindsight we both now know that the intire worlds intel and leaders seem to have been duped by Saddam. I'm not quite sure what that says about the dictator other than he arrogantly thought he was immune to any repercussions from the world community.

I may be the only one left out side of General Sada that still believes the WMDs are under the sand in Syria or at least were at one point. Its not logical that Saddam would have used his last canister of mustered gas and not replace it.

Mitch,

What are you talking about. In most countries you get what you get and you keep your mouth shut unless you want your tounge cut out or a long prison sentence. What do you think ...that the rest of the world lives like and thinks like we do?? Step next door to our favored neighbor Mexico and start a political protest and see what the results of your actions will be. Freedom comes with a heavy price and we better wake up before the coffee runs out.

MItch you said most countries you didn't limit it to democracys of which there are pitifully few on this planet.

Riley,

"most everyone thought that Iraq still had stores of Sarin gas"....especially the Kurds.

Another case of short term memory loss resulting in arrogant 20 20 hindsight.

UN resolutions not withstanding why do you think Saddam would thumb his nose at the world community especially when military action was emminet and not give the world the evidence it asked for to demonstrate that the WMDs that he had were distroyed?

"you claim "knew""... I don't claim anything. Read the Intel reports and statements by the vast majority of world governments and leaders prior to the Iraqi invasion.

Capt Seaweed,

You may leave the 20/20 hindsight talking point at home.

The President was not merely mistaken; he lied.
The evidence never supported his claim, a consensus among the President's own intelligence agencies rejected the basis for the claim prior to the president's speech, and the president knowing this, made the claim anyhow. Simply stated: He lied.

You can try to justify the invasion (weakly and as you do) - but you can't get around this fact. The President knowingly misrepresented facts when making his case for war before a joint session of congress.

----------------------------------------------------------
Concerning the invasion itself, a separate issue:
----------------------------------------------------------
No one else in the world thought that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, nor did they believe that Iraq possessed aluminum centerfuge tubes capable of enriching uranium, nor did anyone believe Iraq had mobile weapons labs. Yes, most everyone thought that Iraq still had stores of Sarin gas; they thought that because they knew the U.S. had sold such munitions to them in the past, but no one cared. WWI era munitions such as Sarin do not pose a significant military threat.

The most important fact however (that you conveniently ignore) is that by March 2003, weapons inspectors had convinced the nations you claim "knew" Iraq possessed WMD, that in fact Iraq was disarmed. It was in this context that The President of the United States ordered troops to engage in an unprovoked war of aggression. That state The President voluntarily attacked was, according to the President's own State Department in 2001, unable to project even enough conventional power to pose a threat against its militarily weak neighbors -- much less pose a threat to the United States.

These are simply the facts.
You are free to form your own opinions based on the facts, of course.

Capt,

Like I said, you can wiggle and justify all you want, but you can't get around the fact that the president lied before congress.

AND - the rest of the world community in March 2003 no longer believed that Iraq had WMD. It was in March 2003 that we invaded.

One more example of Bush Administration lying:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Washington Post, on May 27, 2003 the Pentagon transmitted its decision to the White House that the trailers found in Iraq (which Bush claimed to be mobile biological weapons labs) "had nothing to do with biological weapons." Nevertheless, the most senior members of the Bush administration claimed repeatedly and for six months leading up to the November 2004 presidential elections that the trailers were evidence that weapons of mass destruction had been found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riley,
All but John Kerry I guess...

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

That was John Kerry speaking at the UN? Or joint session of Congress or was the commander in chief capable of engaging war? Was it John Kerry or the rest of the Dems who had committee control that could investigate questions about intel or the docile Repubs who did their White House masters bidding? Kerry and the rest of the Dems were FORCED to accept whatever "intel" given them by an Admin out to invade Iraq under any excuse possible and by a majority shriking their oversight responsibilites. Willful manipulation of intel and selective oversight is in the end a lie. Therefore, irrefutably Bush lied again and again and again.

Sam,

Clinton gave the intel to Bush when he took office or did you forget that part of the equation?

Excellent article making your points. A lot of people will run from this, like ALL the elected people we have in DC. Woe be us.

This is all very interesting but the question was "accountability". What has been the performance in office of George Bush? His underlings are embattled his policies are in tatters and there are no positive accomplishments to offset these negatives.
His accomplishments include, further polarizing the nation, depleting the treasury, killing hundreds of thousands of people, enriching the rich to the detriment of the poor, gutting all regulation of pollution, gutting all regulation of power companies, gutting all regulation of anything.
No movement on health care, or Social Security.
Backward movement on human rights, my god we openly declared that The United States of America tortures people and will defend our right to continue to do so. It is now standard procedure for the U.S.A to "disappear people", or hold them indefinitely without court review.
We can't respond to disasters, and yet we should be satisfied that our names mistakenly on no fly lists make us safer. Buy some duct tape is a response to terrorist?
I seem to have fallen down a rabbit hole, this is not the country I grew up in, this is not acceptable to me, this is the world that george bush has created and I for one say he has to go. Actually Cheney first because he is worse. I don't think we can wait for two more years of continued degeneration.

Capt you have ferocious loyalty to George which is truly amazing. It does not matter if Clinton gave Dubya Osama's home phone number. That does not change the fact that Bush cherrypicked intel that bolstered his desire to invade Iraq. And he had no qualms using intel that looked good despite repeated warnings of inaccuracy. That's amounts to a lie, breach of trust and betrayal of his office and the public at large. Will it take a special proscecutor to place him under oath to legitimize the obvious? Or do these crimes not meet the standard of fibbing about consentual sex between adults?

Dubya will recieve his measure of retribution. He's humilated his father, killed his brother's political future and dealt a crushing blow to the Republican party. As the hearings progress and intensify approaching the election and his circle of support shrinks smaller and smaller he will serve as the public whipping boy for everything neo-con and right wing conservative. But he can always find solace with the oil companies and reward for serving as their chief cheerleader, patron and lobbiest.

Sam,
I have no loyalty to any politician and it is truely amazing that you would conclude otherwise when I have made no indication of such.

The agravating circumstanse that drives me up the wall is an obsession to distroy Bush when he will not be around in 18 months and the energy that that obsession detracts from solving the real crisis at hand. I'm tired of hearing the same old tripe that only takes us farther from a solution to our crisis. Especialy when it is baked in half truths and some down right misinformation. One shouldn't have to make up crap to make a case for truth.

To "destroy Bush" IS dealing with the crisis at hand. As his personal credibility corrodes the public support of his policy erodes and pressure put on Republican congressmen. It's simple math. Bush is the public face and spokesman of most of the economic and international woe that plauges America. He is the poster boy of what it truly means to elect a conservative Republican government. Overwhelming disgust with Bush means overwhelming rejection of his and in consequence the neo-con agenda.

You cannot also dismiss the honest outrage of most of us by the callous betrayal of the Presdency, an office historically perceived to be held by someone with a sacred trust, not a mere weak minded oppourtunist. I know this romantic sentiment is naieve and has been molested more often that not. But Bush took a nation to war for the basest of reasons in a way not even the most corrupt holders of his chair ever had in our history. He really is unique.

Sam,

I would suggest it would be benificial to expand your scope of vision and you make my point when you state "economic......woe that plauges America."

Bush is not even a blip on the screen of anomosity toward the west. You think the mass bombings in Bombay and Spain and India and all over the continent of Africa and the genocide in Darfur and the Ivory coast have anything at all to do with Bush? How about all the direct attacks on America when Bush was still running around in college and Texas getting drunk. Do you equate the attacks on the World Trade Center [vol one] the attempt at sinking the USS cole and the bombings of our embassies in Africa to a "overwhelming disgust" [to use your phase] of Bill Clinton? Whats unique here is the selective vision and short sightedness of people of your thought process that either can't or won't see the larger picture and let thier emotions dictate a single obsessive goal that ultimately clouds thier judgement of reality.

There was a long list of reasons sanctioned by the United Nations and decades of evidence and world intel that were the basis for removing Saddam. In 20 20
hind sight the focus and importence of one of the reasons, WMDs, has become the center point for arguing why we shouldn't be there. And that is the result of the weapons no longer being there for what ever reason. But again keeping our heads in the sands of Iraq is only a distraction from what this century is going to offer the the free world. Short of a reformation in the Islamic church a whole lot of people are going to die this century if free people don't find a way to deal with the real problem. And laying all that on Bush is naivite at the highest degree.

Your perspective is quite "retro" and ignores the reality of Bush action since he took office. Our dependance upon oil and role as Israel's big brother needs no expansion here. Neither is the expansion of the Sahara or the ancient tension between Muslim and Hindu. That's smoke. The issue at hand is Bush, accountability and the future. The "trickle down" philosophy of conservative economics, dispersal of American jobs and industry accelerated under Bush, the bloating of Federal government, tax policy based upon the lie that low tax equals growth equals no deficit and the rest of the neo-con agenda can be argued pro and con and based totally upon perspective and opinion on the nature of what it is to be an American.

You make the tired and discredited argument that Bush's individual reaction to Islamic radicalism was based upon appropriate use of intel and was in due measure to the threat. But you ignore the obvious trail of actions post defeat of Saddam and clear fiasco of implementing a neo-con economic and social agenda upon "liberated" Iraq with the true end goal of seizing Iraq's vast oil resource for Western oil interests with the American Army as security force, the rights of soveign Iraq be damned.

The total discrediting of Bush and American popular rejection of any and all of his and the conservative philosophy will not reverse the core festering sores of the region: oil and Israel. It will, however go a long way to re-establish America as honest broker and influence. We cannot go forward in the region without severe accountablity dealt to Bush and the Republicans.

Finally, manipulation of religion for nationalist or imperialist goals is not unique to Islam and corruption of religious faith is bastardization not definition.

Sam,
" Severe acountability delt to Bush and the Rebublicans"?? What about the Democrates and thier leaders??? Absolutism and distortion of truth will gain you no credibilty here.

Just so you have a better undertanding of where I come from. I have been on the get out of Iraq band wagon for more than two years while most of the rest of the country has been hitching up the horses. I, like most, never assumed tortured people would not want to live free. If the Iraqis don't get it they don't get it.

OIL?? are you serious?? Pre "invassion we got 0% of our oil from Iraq. Why? it was against the law. If we wanted the oil we would have changed the law. Post "invasion" after 5 years we get less than 5% of our oil from Iraq. If we wanted the oil so badly why haven't we just used out troops that are on the ground to secure the oil fields and just take it. Who's going to stop us??? We get most of our imported oil from Canada. Iraq is so far down the list it it doesn't even merit mention in discussion of foreign oil dependance by America. That dog won't hunt.

Get in the ball game and try to come up with a solution to our problems instead of making genocidal political statements. We get enough of that out of Washington.

We're not going forward in the middle east until Isreal is wipe off the face of the map and western civilization acknowleges and bows down to the will of Allah. Unless of course there is reformation in the Islamic church. Arafat was givin 95% of every thing he wanted at a meeting brokered by the US and others and he walked away from the table because he had to submit to the idea that Isreal had the right to exist. Where the heck was Bush then?? Not related to Iraq you say? Then I submit you don't understand the middle eastern situation or the minds of our enemies. America although not untainted is not the bad guy.

Capt to claim oil is not at the center of Bush's Iraq adventure defies credibility. Come now, there can be no serious conversation while pretending the 800 gorilla is invisible. While the guns were still smoking the crews were building the Afgan/Aberjizan (sp?) pipeline under protecting American guns. Exxon tankers waited and shipped out the first runs. The oil law was written by American oil companies ceding international control over vast portions of Iraqi oil fields. American oil conglomerates stand to make staggering fortunes marketing to emerging economies under this scheme. No, Capt this dog hunts up a skunk.

Yes the Islamic world has a long memory. When the settlement concerning a Jewish homeland in Palestine was announced at the post war Peace Conference in 1919 the Arabs rioted in Jerusalem and other cities in the region. Like the Sunni, Shi'ia and Kurd discovered they were now Iraq the desire of the native Arabs were not considered. Post WW2 again the West imposed a refugee host, a homeless, unwanted Jewish population again in the Arab world, this time armed and assisted by America. I understand history and the dynamics of the region quite well. It would help the conversation if you could see your way to accept that.

I don't know what kind of symbiotic relationship is possible between Islam and Judaism. I can see many powerful oppourtunites for both peoples if they could find a way past territorial issues. Outside of isolated incidents Arabs and Jews lived together peaceable for centuries in Palestine.

"'The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,'" - White House senior economic adviser Laurence Lindsey, September 2002

--------------------
--------------------

You can get complex about it all you want, but the facts remain: in official statements to the Congress and official statements before the voting public - Bush lied to make his case for war.

Here's yet another misrepresentation of the facts that the Bush Administration promoted repeatedly:
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
- George W. Bush, Cincinnati on October 7, 2002

"Iraq has provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
- George W. Bush, President's Radio Address, February 8, 2003

The president based this unqualified assertion of fact entirely on the testimony of a lone Jihadist captured in Afghanistan. As if that weren't bad enough, as early as February 2002, the President's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported to him that "more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers" and while the President's own Central Intelligence Agency believed the detainee to be a 'credible' member of al Qaeda, the CIA did not consider the detainee to be in a position to know one way or the other on this matter.

source: Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services - Sen. Carl Levin

Simple fact, there is enough evidence to hold an impeachment trial. In fact, in order to protect and uphold the integrity of our constitution, an impeachment trial of the president is a necessary act in such circumstances.

It really is that simple.

"…Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa'ida to provide material or operational support..."
- according to a CIA report declassified as part of a September 8, 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts

"[The United States is] on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

- The Army War College, January 2004

Riley,
I'd love to read the full text to see what Linsey was talking about in context but The Times search engine doesn't list an entry for "september 2002 oil lindsey" or any of several other combinations that I tried., Do you have an address to this quote? And I don't mean a repeat of it on a left wing web page I mean the source article.

Capt Seaweed,
The issue of oil is just a distraction from the key issues surrounding the case for impeachment, but for the sake of reference, it's a quote from Washington Times, 9/19/02 - according to Think Progress:
Dan Bartlett Caught In A Lie: 'No One Ever Said The War Would Result In Cheaper Gas Prices'

Riley,
I've already been to that site. I'm talking about a first hand source for the statement. I can't find the article on that date at the Times and with out the statement being in context the implication conclusions are infinite. I prefere not to comment on the statement until I know the context. Kind of like quoting the Bible out of context...... "He {Judas} went away and hanged himself"........"go thou and do likewise".

I've seen/read most all the "evidence " for impeachment. I don't see the case that justifies an impeachment. It would be a waste of time and can't be won.

Can't be won, true. Waste of time, not true. It would prove the system works and America can in some small way show the world Bush is an aberration adn not a statement of national character, despite the fools re-election and Republican hold on Congress.

Capt Seaweed,

Washington Times archive search: '1 articles matching "Lindsey AND date(09/19/2002 to 09/19/2002)" were found.' - the article costs $2.95. I don't really understand the relevance of the argument you and Sam are engaging in.Of course oil is a crucial factor in our political and military involvement in the Middle East, and for good reason. Additionally, your argument which relies on the the direct source of where America gets it's oil is poor (and I'm sorry, ignorant): oil is a global commodity, if you increase the global supply you decrease the global price; it doesn't matter much where it comes from. Secondly: Chevron, Haliburton, Cheney, Bush and Rice, et al wouldn't benefit from the American government stealing oil - the way people running our government benefit is by privatizing Iraqi oil operations and then getting their companies guaranteed 30 year no bid contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars to drill, refine, and ship oil out of the region - and getting it subsidized through the protection of the U.S. American military. Maybe this is OK - maybe this is the price of doing business; oil is after all crucial to our economy and as such, our national security --- but let's be honest about it. The Taliban is back in Afghanistan -- but we sure do have that pipeline secure.


That being said however, lying to congress is a civil crime; if not impeach the president, then at least indict him civilly.

Anything the Congress deems to be a sufficient abuse of constitutional power is impeachable ... it's their judgement call. But for consistency sake, there is precident to impeach a president for lying to congress, and so unless you are seriously still trying to claim that the president did not lie to congress, you must acknowledge that an impeachment trial is justified.

Do you still seriously deny that the president did knowingly misrepresented evidence to congress?

Riley,

I think if you liberally define the word lie to include the use of it by Bush as referenceing faulty intel then you open the can of worms that we will need to impeach or indict civily every congressman in Washington and that is an obserd waste of time when there are issues that need to be resolved.

Capt. Seaweed wrote: "I think if you liberally define the word lie to include the use of it by Bush as referencing faulty intel [...]"

I do not.

There was no faulty intel in this matter; the basis for the President's claim was never substantiated by our nation's intelligence agencies. Moreover, the President was made aware of this fact when told specifically on more than one occasion to remove the claim from previous speeches. So, despite not having a substantial basis for making the claim to begin with and having been told by the ranking intelligence officer of the United States on more than one occasion not to make the claim, the President decided to make the claim anyway. This is what I define to be a lie.

Quite the opposite of what you argue, if we fail to uphold even such a low standard of accountability, we'll never be able to impeach or indict any member of congress or President. There's no more important government issue than upholding and defending our constitution, which is what the impeachment process does.

Wow,

from what I read and know in May of 2007 it seems that most all the intel prior to the Iraqi fiasco was faulty. And most every one in the world bought into it. You should run for President and keep us all [world et al] in the know.

"most all the intel prior to the Iraqi fiasco was faulty. And most every one in the world bought into it."

You're wrong.

The claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Africa was never at any time verified by United States intelligence - nor by French intel, nor by German intel, nor by Italian intel, nor by Israeli intel -- nor by any of our other allies best qualified to verify the claim. Again, like I said:
the Bush Administration was told on at least two other occasions not to make the "uranium from Africa" claim because it could not be verified by U.S. intelligence. Bush made the claim anyway.

Secondly, no intelligence agency in the world believed the Bush Administration claim that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons. None of the Bush Administration claims concerning nuclear weapons, uranium purchases, and aluminum tubes were ever verified by U.S. intelligence and were in fact quickly debunked by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Bush Administration made the claims anyway, and worse, they punctuated the unverified claims with hysterical stories about looming mushroom clouds.

Finally, while it's true that most nations believed in 2002 that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin gas, upon receiving current and better quality intel from extensive 2003 U.N weapons inspections, they were satisfied that in fact Iraq did not poses significant amounts (if any) of even these weapons (which are in fact less destructive than many conventional weapons). In March 2003 at the time that George Bush gave the command to invade Iraq, the consensus among the world's best intel was that Iraq was and had been disarmed. Bush gave the order to invade anyway. By definition, an invasion such as this is a war of aggression (a war crime of the sort the United States has prosecuted others for in the past) and a violation of our own constitution.

Here's another example of George W. Bush making reckless claims of the type that the international community flatly rejected:

"[Saddam Hussein] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
- Geroge W. Bush before Congress, January 28, 2003

The basis for this claim was credibly refuted at least a year before Bush made the above speech:

In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the [aluminum tubes] controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that "it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently."

As an academic, Wood said, he would not describe "anything that you absolutely could not do." But he said he would "like to see, if they're going to make that claim, that they have some explanation of how you do that. Because I don't see how you do it."
source: Washington Post, Sunday, August 10, 2003;

When the experts tasked with designing centerfuges to enrich uranium for the United States tell you that they do not know of any way you can use the tubes in question to enrich uranium, on what basis then do you continue to claim that the tubes can be used to enrichment uranium?

Even after this assessment by our nation's leading experts, the Bush Administration continued to make its "aluminum tube" claim assertively and repeatedly.

Again, this is not a case of faulty intelligence, this is a case of making reckless claims based on unsubstantiated intelligence and simultaneously willfully ignoring conclusive contradictory evidence.

more - this article, published February 15, 2003, over a month before the Iraq invasion:

... "barely more than a week after Powell's speech it now looks as though its major claims were at best speculative, and at worst outright distortions, some of them derided in advance by UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix.

There was the supposed transporter of biotoxins that turned out to be a truck from the Baghdad health department; the sinisterly enlarged test ramp for long distance missiles that was nothing of the sort; the suspect facility that had recently been cleared by the UN inspection teams; the strange eavesdropped conversations that could as well have been Iraqi officers discussing how to hide stills for making bootleg whiskey. The promoter of the Iraq/Al Qaeda link, Abu Musab Zarqawi turns out to be an imaginative liar trying to get a prison sentence commuted and the terror cell, Ansar-al Islam, a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists violently opposed to Saddam and operating out of Kurdish territory.

And of course there was the British intelligence report, sent by Tony Blair to Powell who commended it in his UN speech as particularly "fine". The report turned out to be a series of plagiarisms from old articles from Jane's, and from a paper on Iraqi politics written by a student called Ibrahim al Marashi, at the Monterey Institute for International Studies. "
source: Counterpunch, February 15, 2003

But the Bush administration continued to make these discredited claims anyway, and asserted that they were justification for unprovoked war.

... and more lies followed soon after:

On May 27, 2003, a Pentagon field report was transmitted to Washington indicating that trailers found in Iraq "had nothing to do with biological weapons.". The Bush administration classified the document, and went ahead claiming just the opposite was true. For six months leading up to the November 2004 presidential elections the Bush Administration officially claimed that the trailers were confirming evidence that weapons programs and weapons of mass destruction had been found.
source: Washignton Post via Think Progress web site

"Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - George W. Bush, May 29, 2003

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents." - George W. Bush, June 5, 2003

Fact is, the weapons George Bush claims to have already been found were never found and no U.S. intelligence agency every reported otherwise. The CIA's official stance on the two trailers was that they were: "probably used as mobile biological weapons labs." no weapons, and only judged to be probably significant by people who had not directly inspected the trailers. Meanwhile, the Pentagon's intelligence, which had inspected the trailers directly sent a definitive statement to the white house about the nature of the labs - and this intelligence was ignored. Worse, the White House classified the Pentagon's statement; why? - clearly the nature of the trailers was being openly discussed by the White house.

Again, this is another example of the Bush Administration making reckless claims or flat out lying - repeatedly.

Read the complete list of statements made by the Bush Administration leading up to the 2004 elections: Here

Capt. Seaweed,
the fact that you think what the "intel" is is what 'they' tell you the 'intel' is is proof pure that you don't want to know. ever hear of the 'downing street memo'? remember the "iraq/Al Queda" links made by the admin? think maybe you'd get a calm reasoned response from Colin Powell if you could have a friend to friend talk with him about whether or not he was used/duped to play the part he did before the U.N.?
impeachment is the constitutional cure for constitutional abuse. if Nixon had been made to pay for his unconstitutional crimes, and Reagan and Northh et al had been made to do the time for their crimes, maybe this ciminal would have been more careful about his abuser of the constitution. this is a nation of laws, and no one is above the law.
Capt. Bluesband