Kerry To Push For Bush Impeachment?

demon

Master Poster
D
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
2,736
Anyone got the lowdown on this?

quote:
Breaking News : Kerry To Push For Bush Impeachment
Posted by News Reporter on 2005/6/3 10:29:52

By Sher Zieve

John Kerry announced Thursday that he intends to present Congress with The Downing Street Memo, reported by the London Times 1 May 2005. As reported by NewsMax, the memo purports to include minutes from a July 2002 meeting with Tony Blair, in which Blair ostensibly said that President Bush’s Administration “fixed” intelligence on Iraq in order to justify the Iraqi war. In an interview with the Standard Times, Kerry said: "It's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

The Boston Globe published an article by Ralph Nader, Tuesday, in which Nader also called for President Bush’s impeachment. The story is being carried on Michael Moore’s website and the Democratic Underground. Failed presidential candidate Kerry advised that he will begin the presentation of his case for President Bush’s impeachment to Congress, on Monday.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry said, referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper.

"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," the top Democrat added.
The Downing Street Memo, first reported on May 1 by the London Times, was drafted by a Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is said to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration "fixed" Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war.

Citing the Downing Street Memo, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for an impeachment investigation on Tuesday in an op-ed piece published by the Boston Globe.

"It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists," wrote Nader with co-author Kevin Zeese. "A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step."

The British memo, however, contains no quotes from either Bush or Blair, and is notably slim on evidence implicating Bush in a WMD cover-up.

Though largely ignored in the U.S. outside of rabid anti-Bush Web sites like MichaelMoore.com, the Downing Street Memo won Sen. Kerry's endorsement in the Standard Times interview:

"It's amazing to me," the top Democrat said, "the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know, Newsmax...not the most desirable source in the world although I`m hoping it is true...I`m waiting to see if any of the majors run with this story.
 
Don't hold your breath. For one thing, don't forget that Kerry and his cronies in the Senate were breathing fire for an invasion of Iraq while Clinton was in office, and they had even less justification for it.

For another, let's not forget that people are getting a little tired of the latest Dirty Document of the Day. We've already had that, and now Dan Rather is about out of a job. IF it's factual, it might do some damage, but if there's even a whiff that it's a fake, Kerry might find himself needing to find a real job for once in his life.
 
Roadtoad said:
Don't hold your breath. For one thing, don't forget that Kerry and his cronies in the Senate were breathing fire for an invasion of Iraq while Clinton was in office, and they had even less justification for it.

For another, let's not forget that people are getting a little tired of the latest Dirty Document of the Day. We've already had that, and now Dan Rather is about out of a job. IF it's factual, it might do some damage, but if there's even a whiff that it's a fake, Kerry might find himself needing to find a real job for once in his life.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a fake in that sense. It just isn't a damning smoking gun, and I think that the people at the forefront, waiving it around, know that.
 
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Click to expand...

Anyone know who "C" is? This is the opinion of "C". If Blair is "C", there might be something here, otherwise, what makes you think the US would impeach a president on the basis of a British official's (other than Blair) opinion? If "C" is Blair, it would imply special knowledge and a conflict of interest.

edited:
d'oh I forgot to include the kook-site I copied this from, but this is from the memo and is easily googleable to a more verifiable source.

http://www.tomjoad.org/downingstreetmemo.htm#fulltext

The editor of this site really thinks he/she has gotten his/her teeth into something here. :D

Oh wait, here's a better site:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

How anyone can make themselves think that this is "proof" of anything other than certain British officials having a low opinion of the current US administration is beyond me...
 
OK, found a site with a lot of info and links regarding this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

My opinion of what it represents:

Bush and Blair did indeed exaggerate the case for WMD - we know that by now anyway, don't we? It appears that they were trying to force Saddam's hand into being uncooperative with UN inspectors. I'm OK with that. What retarded world do some folks live in where a nation's leader does not plan out a conflict before the information is made fully public?

I'm also OK with it because of facts like these:
On January 16, 2003 U.N. inspectors discovered 11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads ? components not previously declared by Iraq. Iraq dismissed the warheads as old weapons that had been packed away and forgotten. After performing tests on the warheads, U.N. inspectors believe that they were new. While the warheads are evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, they may not amount to a "smoking gun", according to U.S. officials, unless some sort of chemical agent is also detected. U.N. inspectors believe there to still be large quantities of weapons materials that are still unaccounted for. U.N. inspectors also searched the homes of several Iraqi scientists.

On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Inspector Hans Blix said that after the empty chemical warheads were found on the 16th, Iraq produced papers documenting the destruction of many other similar warheads, which had not been disclosed before. This still left thousands of warheads unaccounted for however. Inspectors also reported the discovery of over 3,000 pages of weapons program documents in the home of an Iraqi citizen, suggesting an attempt to "hide" them from inspectors and apparently contradicting Iraq's earlier claim that it had no further documents to provide. In addition, by the 28th, a total of 16 Iraqi scientists had refused to be interviewed by inspectors. The United States reports that sources have told them that Saddam has ordered the death of any scientist that speaks with inspectors in private. Iraq insists that they are not putting pressure on the scientists.

On February 5, 2003, the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to "prove" the urgency to engage a war with Iraq. Although the presentation has failed to change the fundamental position of the UN Security Council -- mainly France, Germany, Russia and China, Powell succeeded to harden the overall tone of the United Nations towards disarmament in Iraq. Powell also said that Iraq harbours a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab Zarqawi (in a small region controlled by Ansar al-Islam). Powell also showed photos of what he said was a poison and explosives training camp in north-east Iraq, operated by the group. However, when this camp was visited by a British journalist two days later, all that was found was a few dilapidated buildings and no evidence or signs of any terrorist activity, chemical or explosives. Powell alleged that these training camps had been opperating with help from Iraqi agents. Powell also said that Iraqis visited Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members. According to US intelligence, Iraq maintains an active connection to the terrorist organization. While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as 'proof' by many in the USA, this is not the case in Europe, where there is still widespread scepticism of any links between Iraq and al Qaeda. It is notable that even the UK government's intelligence services do not believe there is any link.

In February 24, 2003, the U.S., the U.K. and Spain presented a draft resolution to the Security Council which declared that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it resolution 1441. [3] (http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/17937.htm) The resolution split the UN and led to serious diplomatic rifts, with the U.S. and the U.K. coming under sustained criticism from France, Russia and Germany. The resolution was eventually withdrawn, with the sponsors contending that it had been sabotaged by France's threat to veto the new resolution "whatever the circumstances", while critics (and France itself) argued that the French position had been intentionally misrepresented and that the majority of the Security Council had opposed the proposed resolution.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq
 
"C" is Sir Richard Dearlove -- in British Intelligence.

Do later sections of the memo also count?

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary
Click to expand...

If everyone was busy faking WMD reports, why were the US and Britain developing plans to meet WMD deployment?
 
So let's get this straight. Bush wants to invade Iraq. But instead of choosing some other excuse--like Saddam's human-rights record or his shooting at Americans over the "no-fly" zone or his support of suicide bombers--he deliberately fabricates WMD reports, knowing full well that when the invasion is over, WMDs will not be found, costing him dearly.

Does this make any sense to you? I can certainly accept that Bush WANTED TO BELIEVE Tenent and the others who told him Iraq has WMDs, we all tend to believe what we want to be true. But a deliberate conspiracy? Makes no sense.
 
Skeptic said:
So let's get this straight. Bush wants to invade Iraq. But instead of choosing some other excuse--like Saddam's human-rights record or his shooting at Americans over the "no-fly" zone or his support of suicide bombers--he deliberately fabricates WMD reports, knowing full well that when the invasion is over, WMDs will not be found, costing him dearly.
Click to expand...
Conspiracy or not, WMDs were not found. How did it cost him dearly? He was re-elected, remember?
 
Skeptic said:
So let's get this straight. Bush wants to invade Iraq. But instead of choosing some other excuse--like Saddam's human-rights record or his shooting at Americans over the "no-fly" zone or his support of suicide bombers--he deliberately fabricates WMD reports, knowing full well that when the invasion is over, WMDs will not be found, costing him dearly.

Does this make any sense to you? I can certainly accept that Bush WANTED TO BELIEVE Tenent and the others who told him Iraq has WMDs, we all tend to believe what we want to be true. But a deliberate conspiracy? Makes no sense.
Click to expand...


Welllllllllllll.........

I really and truely believe that all polititions really despise the citizenry. I really, really believe that the advisors that they have are cynical in the extreme. If a mantra is repeated often enough people do simply loose their outrage. The formation of a "committee" some years after the fact that drags on and on and on is the best that we can expect and it is hard to maintain a white heat of indignation for a period of years.

Supposing the intellegance was faulty and off the mark. Why, in the name of all that is holy, did the Director of the CIA not get boiled in oil? No, he was allowed to resign a long time after the fact. I mean, the basic premise for the war was "supported" by his directorate and they were wrong.

No, I think that the truth is mutable with GW (and Kerry and Kennedy andChaney and Bloomberg and all of the bastards). They know full well that they will set the agenda for any election and they can never be cross examined (and that we are collectively like Grandpa Simpson).


n.b. Kennedy is a wonderful case in point. He was complicit in a young womans death and at the very least behaved like a cad. Reprecussions? The morons in Mass. keep reelecting him and the issue never comes up. Mary Jo Kopechne, RIP, you my dear, were screwed twice that night.
 
First of all, as a US Senator, Kerry is in no position to "push for" impeachment. For that he would have to be a member of the House.

Unless it means behind the scenes, but there is zero evidence for that.

All we have is that Kerry will "bring up" the infamous memo in the foreign relations committee. But he pretty much has to.

If all you've got is Newsmax, et al, it's not much of a story.

Conyers notwithstanding, at this point impeachment is just a rank and file fantasy, ironically partly fueled by right wing media.
 
Bjorn said:
Conspiracy or not, WMDs were not found. How did it cost him dearly? He was re-elected, remember?
Click to expand...

Think about this for just a moment ...

If chemical weapons were deployed against out troops (but we still won out), chemical weapons were fired at Israel killing thousands (if not tens of thousands), dirty bombs were launched at Kuwait and huge stockpiles of all sorts of illegal weapons were discovered (along with terrorist plans for US strikes), do you really think the 2004 election would have come down to Ohio's final count? Just who would have still voted for Kerry? Yes, Bush won in 2004 -- but it was close none-the-less.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Conyers notwithstanding, at this point impeachment is just a rank and file fantasy, ironically partly fueled by right wing media.
Click to expand...

Not so ironic.

But it is very silly.

If you can get past the tense of the memo (which others have indicated I should) then you've still got, at best, the memo reports that he said he said this about that.

Not the best of evidence even in rebuttal.

I suppose if the dems have an absolute landslide in the 06 elections then the articles for impeachment might actually make it TO committee. Certainly not past it. Not based on this and not when you've got the one bringing the articles on tape say (paraphrase) "if you don't believe Saddam has WMD's then you don't need to vote for me."

It's silly but fun to post about.
 
Ed said:
Mary Jo Kopechne, RIP, you my dear, were screwed twice that night.
Click to expand...
But her martyrdom wasn't in vain, for her death made certain that Ted would never, ever becomr POTUS.
 
Ed said:
Mary Jo Kopechne, RIP, you my dear, were screwed twice that night.
Click to expand...

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/01/it_is_finally_t.html

Guest column on Iowahawk by Ted Kennedy:

"It Is Finally Time To Exit The Oldsmobile"

"And, after we return to the safety of the American shore and phone our lawyer, we must begin to ask the hard questions. How did we get here? The sad answer is that we were sold a lie by Gene Quinlan of Hyannisport Oldsmobile-Buick-GMC. We were told that this Oldsmobile had the Delta 88 Royale option package with 6-way electric seats. We were told that they were sold out of the new '69 Toronado. We were given a choice of a burgundy vinyl roof, but never given an exit strategy. We were told, repeatedly, that the Oldsmobile was waterproof and had an automatic pilot system. In short, Gene Quinlan sold us a lie."
 
WildCat said:
But her martyrdom wasn't in vain, for her death made certain that Ted would never, ever becomr POTUS.
Click to expand...

True, true.
 
Conspiracy or not, WMDs were not found. How did it cost him dearly? He was re-elected, remember?

Yes he was; but he didn't have a crystal ball knowing that he would. Iraq and its problems were by FAR the most important issues the Democrats used to attack him.
 
About Ted Kennedy, the democrats really need to get rid of this guy. Instead, they let him, of all people, complain in the Senate about reports that the USA is using "water torture" in Iraq.

You'd think that by now, in any senate discussion that has anything to do with liquids--water or alcohol--somebody would make damn sure Kennedy isn't around, but noooo...
 
How can Kerry not see that this paints him as a sore loser, no matter how sincerely he believes the memo is important?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom