Palast: Impeachment time: The facts were fixed

[Carolab]

IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."
Special to BuzzFlash
Thursday, May 5, 2005
By Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over
it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight
months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the
President, reads, "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."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me,
"Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and
the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are
shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate
plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet
into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a
phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering.
However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case
was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was
less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "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."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence
before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty,
condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough
review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community
distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let
Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days
before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- posted on my website -- and see if you can
make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the
New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the
Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political
career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday,
Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard
in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which
requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of
Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story.
Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more
incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But
in the US press
nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over
there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections.
And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on
death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably
called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people
is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy
to do.


-----------
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money
Can Buy. Read the memo in its entirety at www.GregPalast.com

You may reproduce this report without fee but with attribution.

Media requests: contact(at)gregpalast.com



============================================
If you would like to have your e-mail address removed from this mailing list.
Cut and paste the following URL into your browser address bar. This will
automatically remove from the mailing list and you will receive no further
mailings.
http://www.gregpalast.com/emailremove.cfm?id=39090

[still_one]

1. won't happen without the majority

[hiley]

20. Keep hope alive !

Join the over 459909
who have already voted
in the referendum to Impeach Bush Now!
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

[Mr Rabble]

2. Im sure Hannity, Hume, and O,Dildo will be all over this...

NOT!

[ktowntennesseedem]

4. They'll be all over it... to cover it up and keep it from the light of day

Don't have to try very hard either; just pound away at the scandal/scoop of the day, keep the sheeple entertained and amused, and accuse those trying to shine a light on the truth of being traitors who hate America.

More kool-aide, anyone?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[JabbatheHutt]

3. But, it's still possible in 2006

when the Dems take over both the House and Senate (comes with filibuster-proof majority! No nuclear option is needed!)

Then Chimp and his entire maladministration will be frog-marched to the Hague..

[really-looney]

5. Dont need both Houses

Just the House. The House does its job, the story will get out.

TAKE BACK THE HOUSE IN 06

[ktowntennesseedem]

7. Hope you're right, Jabba! (Welcome to DU)

I fear, however, that no matter how badly Shrub & Co. screw the country, their control of the media mean they can keep a lid on bad numbers and disagreeable opinions, and if necessary their buddies at Diebold can make sure that those numbers and opinions don't happen to express themselves come election day.

[ihaveaquestion]

6. Buuuut, then we'd have

President CH$&*EY

[really-looney]

9. No we would just have one great big investigation

It would not remove the resident as the Senate would never convict. It would male for interesting reading everey day like President Clintons Blow-Job

[Independent_Liberal]

11. Not exactly, we can impeach them both...

...and the entire misadministration.

[quaoar]

12. Impeach them both

and you end up with President Dennis Hastert.

[Independent_Liberal]

13. That's right, it would go in order of succession...

But if the Dems took control of Congress in 06 and Hastert was out of the picture, wouldn't there be a Democratic House Speaker who would take over?

[quaoar]

18. President Nancy Pelosi

That sounds a whole lot better.

[hiley]

23. we expose Cheney too !

keep hope alive, they are all war criminals !hiley

Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General John David Ashcroft

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H snip-----
http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_articles

http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

[quaoar]

8. "And if this ain't it, nothing is."

Nothing is.

Bush could be caught having sex with a dead boy at the Iwo Jima Memorial with a briefcase full of cocaine and $100 bills counterfeited in North Korea, and this Republican Congress would pretend that nothing happened.

[Morose]

16. I fear you've nailed it

on the head.

[doodadem]

10. I emailed this story to Keith Olbermann yesterday

and said here--here's some real news for you to report on so you can get off this Runaway Bride crap, which is totally beneath you.

[Jo March]

22. doodadem, that's exactly what we need to do

Time for a media blaster!

Where is tommcintire? I'm going to go and hunt him down for this one.

We need to start blasting to ALL media outlets every day, unceasingly, without fail.

[hiley]

37. Bravo ! arnheim !

:yourock:

[rodeodance]

38. yes, I too have been disappointed that he has covered the bride story

day after day.

[meganmonkey]

14. "And if this ain't it, nothing is."

Yep. Scary and true, that statement. I hope this IS it, but despite my almost limitless optimism I have a hard time thinking this, or anything, will the bushtards impeached. But I'll keep hoping and trying.

[AspenRose]

17. I hope and pray every day

See my sig line

[bananas]

15. Don't click that link!

I clicked on the link at the bottom of the message,
assuming it would bring to the article.
The webpage said, "Removal Successful Your e-mail address has been removed from the mailing list"
Oops!
Now I have to resubscribe.
Please - when you paste an article, don't include the link to unsubscribe!

[hiley]

19. More from page at Greg Palast

many on the right want to impeach bush and company over the border, however ....
bush and co are war criminals...hiley



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02



The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether

snip----http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=426&row=0



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3588644

[Coexist]

21. how does he continue to get away with this shit?

and I hardly ever curse.

[hiley]

25. because we are letting him

mobilize, act and revolt against this immoral administration......
you never give up
find another angle
keep fighting with all you have and network with more people
keep hope alive.....
http://www.missionnotaccomplished.us/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3588644

[understandinglife]

24. Ray McGovern: "Well, you can forget circumstantial."

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts
Ray McGovern
May 04, 2005

"Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

It has been a hard learning—that folks tend to believe what they want to believe. As long as our evidence, however abundant and persuasive, remained circumstantial, it could not compel belief. It simply is much easier on the psyche to assent to the White House spin machine blaming the Iraq fiasco on bad intelligence than to entertain the notion that we were sold a bill of goods.

Well, you can forget circumstantial. Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents—this time authentic, not forged."

(more at the link):
http://www.tompaine.com/20050504/articles/proof_bush_fixed_the_facts.php

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; INDICT BU$H AND ALL THE OTHER WAR CRIMINALS, NOW

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. Like the way they keep relentlessly hammering on Social Security

"It simply is much easier on the psyche to assent to the White House spin machine blaming the Iraq fiasco on bad intelligence than to entertain the notion that we were sold a bill of goods."

Didn't Bush just try forcing an association between 401Ks and his privatization plan?

Who stands to gain? Follow the money, not the words.

Bush and friends profit endlessly from invading Iraq. They hammered hammered hammered at the need to invade. Now they hammer at SS. No, no similarities here...

[suziedemocrat]

26. Last night Larry King Live did a show on Sociopaths. Lack of conscience

is one of the major signs. They went on to say that serial killers aren't the only sociopaths. White Collar executives who steal old ladies pensions are probably sociopaths. I'm thinking, what about high level government officials who send young men and women off to die for no reason?????

According to the experts on Larry King, 4% of the population are sociopaths and/or psychopaths.

[understandinglife]

27. "4% of the population are sociopaths and/or psychopaths"...and, ..

...it appears that many of that 4 % currently work inside the beltway.......


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; INDICT BU$H AND ALL THE OTHER WAR CRIMINALS, NOW

[Hello_Kitty]

29. That wouldn't surprise me a bit

An intelligent sociopath can rise to extraordinary levels of power. They don't let little things like morals or compassion get in the way of their goals. That doesn't fully explain the astonishing success of *, who appears to be utterly devoid of great intelligence or talent. Imagine if he came from a more modest family. I picture him being one of those slick used-car salesman who traps poor people into high interest loans. Or one of those asshole middle managers who bullies his co-workers and subordinates. I've known quite a few GWBs in my life. Fortunately most of them don't have family connections to milk.

[suziedemocrat]

31. Exactly!! They said Sociopaths make the best psychologists because they

have an amazing understanding of people. They can read people and instantly know their weaknesses and how to exploit them. An amazing trait. Usually they are charming.

I don't think GW is the only sociopath in the WH. I'm sure they have a number of them who are intelligent enough to help GW along. Plus, it appears many Americans are turned off by intelligent politicians - so maybe they found an ideal front man. A dim-witted wannabe jock (but actually a cheerleader), who makes crude jokes, has a cute way of mispronouncing big words, has a sense of entitlement, and doesn't have a conscience.

[hiley]

30. seems most of the 4% there are members of PNAC

and are currently holding the most powerful positions in America.
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html
stopsleeping America !
please tell everyone you know about PNAC , even though most at DU know millions of others have no idea...

Lets Not Forget: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President


By Neil Mackay
15 September 2002: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

snip----
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3588644

http://www.missionnotaccomplished.us/

[ieoeja]

28. Depends on the meaning of the word "fixed".

Clearly Palast is taking this to mean "rigged" as in "he fixed the race so his horse would win". But it could just as easily have meant "affixed" as in "he fixed a line to the dock to keep the boat from sailing away with the tide".

Of course, this was not a legal document carefully reviewed for technical accuracy. It was an internal memo, probably tossed off in a couple of minutes and with possibly sloppy language.

[Disturbed]

32. Why aren't the Top Dems talking about this?

As the top tier are not talking about the Gannon Scandal are they going to ignore this, as well?

[Kenneth ken]

34. what you're not understanding

is that the policy to oust Hussein had been set, then the intelligence and facts were being arranged to support the policy.

That is 180 degrees out from what Bush publicly stated - which is that Hussein was a threat, so something needed to be done.

And if you actually read the memo, you will see that it is well-ordered in terms of layout, and not something "probably tossed off in a couple of minutes"

here: scroll about halfway down

PS - I just started reading the Ray McGovern piece on this, and he says the memo is the official minutes from a briefing given by Britain's head of MI-6 (equivalent to our CIA); which is what they seemed like when I read the memo (minutes of a meeting), and why I object to your likening the memo to something tossed off sloppily.

[IChing]

35. Why is this being

posted again moderator? I posted this in the editorial section and already has 15 votes for greatest. Though it needs to be read, the rico act as it applies is in that thread.

[knight_of_the_star]

36. Kick this around by e-mail

The media won't give a week old rat's shit over this, we have to get the word out SOMEHOW. We play this right, combined with DeLay, we'll be able to create the groundswell we need to toss these cretins out.

[rodeodance]

39. the smoking gun that went puuff

[nolabels]

40. Get over it already, the REPUBLICANS will NEVER impeach

Somehow this one smiley icon :banghead: seems quite appropriate for anybody that thinks otherwise :shrug:

[Carolab]

41. Mostly, this is about BLAIR, not Bush.

If it can bring Blair down, and this election is in many ways payback for Iraq for Blair, perhaps in time it can also fall onto Bush?

[Q]

42. What's stopping impeachment is not so much the Republican Majority...

...as the lack of interest by the Democratic Minority. Impeachment never happens until enough members of the OPPOSITION PARTY DEMAND IT.

Why should any Republican be interested in hearings or impeachment if Democrats don't think it's necessary?

[Al-CIAda]

43. kick

[understandinglife]

44. "MNA 1608"

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - STOP THE ATROCITIES; INDICT AND PROSECUTE BU$H AND ALL THE OTHER WAR CRIMINALS