9/11 Lies: Another Basis for Impeachment
"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda".
In addition, a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.
And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.
Indeed, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Therefore, Bush expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks.
Grounds for impeachment based on 9-11 lies are just as important as those based on lies regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because the administration's false claims about Saddam and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to support the invasion of Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Saddam-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since that terrible day, the American people have been terrified, and thus irrational, based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues until "we get the bad guys."
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any cost. Thus, I would argue that the Saddam-911 deception was a necessary precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.
And polls show that almost 90% of the troops in Iraq are under the mistaken belief that the U.S. mission in that country is “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.” In other words, our kids are fighting and dying because of this lie.
Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. (As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries.) Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans are a good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of their countries? I believe not, without first exposing that the Reichstag fire -- the sole event which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The Germans were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.
Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.
But Can They Really Be Impeached for 9/11 Lies?
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has stated that "Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals" is grounds for impeachment (see paragraph 10) and see paragraph 7 here ("Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information . . . .")
Lying about Saddam's connection to 9/11 may thus be an impeachable offense.
Postscript: On December 16, 2005, Bush admitted "There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11" (and see this video). However, Bush and Cheney continue to frequently invoke 9/11 as justification for the Iraq war (and see this).
A bipartisan Senate Report from 2006 found that Bush misled the press on Iraq link to Al-Qaeda
On April 24, 2007, Congressman Kucinich submitted articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney which include Cheney's false linkage of Iraq and 9/11.
It has also just been revealed that 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "my interest is to hit Saddam". This confirms previous reports that hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time", is the statement "Hard to get a good case." In other words, top officials knew that there wasn't a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
This article does not discuss the evidence that elements of the U.S. government actually carried out or aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks themselves. However, if articles of impeachment were filed concerning the administration's lies about 9/11, then the truth of who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks would be relevant, and a door opened to examine such evidence.
In addition, a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.
And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See this analysis. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11.
Indeed, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Therefore, Bush expressly justified the Iraq war to Congress by representing that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11 attacks.
Grounds for impeachment based on 9-11 lies are just as important as those based on lies regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because the administration's false claims about Saddam and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to support the invasion of Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Saddam-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.
Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since that terrible day, the American people have been terrified, and thus irrational, based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues until "we get the bad guys."
Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any cost. Thus, I would argue that the Saddam-911 deception was a necessary precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.
And polls show that almost 90% of the troops in Iraq are under the mistaken belief that the U.S. mission in that country is “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.” In other words, our kids are fighting and dying because of this lie.
Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. (As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries.) Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans are a good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of their countries? I believe not, without first exposing that the Reichstag fire -- the sole event which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The Germans were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.
Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.
The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time.
But Can They Really Be Impeached for 9/11 Lies?
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has stated that "Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda and concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment to create a climate of fear and hatred and destroy opposition to his war goals" is grounds for impeachment (see paragraph 10) and see paragraph 7 here ("Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information . . . .")
Lying about Saddam's connection to 9/11 may thus be an impeachable offense.
Postscript: On December 16, 2005, Bush admitted "There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11" (and see this video). However, Bush and Cheney continue to frequently invoke 9/11 as justification for the Iraq war (and see this).
A bipartisan Senate Report from 2006 found that Bush misled the press on Iraq link to Al-Qaeda
On April 24, 2007, Congressman Kucinich submitted articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney which include Cheney's false linkage of Iraq and 9/11.
It has also just been revealed that 5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "my interest is to hit Saddam". This confirms previous reports that hours after the 9/11 attacks, Rumsfeld said "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time", is the statement "Hard to get a good case." In other words, top officials knew that there wasn't a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
This article does not discuss the evidence that elements of the U.S. government actually carried out or aided and abetted the 9/11 attacks themselves. However, if articles of impeachment were filed concerning the administration's lies about 9/11, then the truth of who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks would be relevant, and a door opened to examine such evidence.
17 Comments:
Well done, George. A nice read. More to follow.
I would like to see a quote from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield that has said that Saddam was respsonible for 9/11. You have provided none, probably because none have been made.
By the way, you must have some awesome weed. Can I buy some?
For anyone looking for quotes re: Saddam being 'responsible for 9/11,' I'd recommend a couple of places that seem like good places to start.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm
For anyone who thinks that the 9/11 commission report answers all of the unanswered questions about 9/11, you need a dose of reallity (or weed) or something.
I updated my blog. take a look. http://www.911truthseekers.blogspot.com
"The building is like a giant banana unpeeling itself. A vast quantity of debris is being propelling away from the building. Thus the mass bearing down on the building is dramatically decreasing as the building collapses. Consider that the building's support collumns become stronger as you go towards the ground (to support the weight of the building above). However, even though the mass bearing down on the buildling is decreasing, and the building is getting stronger simultaneously, the collapse of either tower did not slow down as it progressed towards the ground. They collapsed in roughly the same speed as an object in free fall."
I've never heard anyone point out that the load bearing down on the collapsing towers should be getting lighter as it comes down because most of the debris is flying out and away from the buildings. meanwhile the collumns get stronger towards the ground. yet, the collapse does not slow down
I'm far from an engineer, but as the collapse continues, doesn't that have the potential for a heavier load, given that there is more collapsed building bearing down?
I'm not an engineer either but it seems to me that, since the building has it's whole weight to start with, it would lose weight as it fell, owing to debris falling out the sides.
Yes, and as the buildings collapses it cleared out the floors ahead of itself for maximum efficiency. Remember there was universal fire damage on every single floor which allowed for the global support collapse. There have been other fires that were less intense and somehow those buildings remained standing. Such as the Madrid fire for instance: Also, when floors collapse on one another there is absolutely no resistance whatsoever. This allows it to fall symmetrically in its own footprint. All buildings are essentially constructed like a row of dominoes just waiting for one floor to be tipped over. There is no such thing as central support columns and no such thing as building redundancy. Those are all urban myths.
this is just like jak's wife going after a piece of his skull.they who ever they are, are telling us what to belive. america beware!
Well said!
IMPEACH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT6Zhx0q8xs
Guys, do all of ourselves a favor. Stop calling the destruction of the towers collapses. They were demolished, blown up, pulverized, pulled, etc.
I am no engineer, but I can tell most explosions from collapses. Collapses don't throw steel 100's of yards away.
There will be no impeachment of George W. Bush because there are too many Republicans in the Senate that place the value of the party higher than the value of the American citizens at large. Even if laws were broken, lies were perpetrated, and high crimes and misdemeanors were committed. By refusing to act against anyone committing crimes, they themselves violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution and join the list of the guilty/
Bipartisan Senate Report: Bush Misled Press on Iraq Link to al-Qaeda
Published: September 08, 2006 9:05 PM ET
WASHINGTON Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.
We did not have to invade Iraq, we could have taken Sadam out the same way Clinton took out Melosivich in a war where we did not lose one man. Lets also remember that republican's told Clinton he could not win that war without troop's on the ground. Another tidbit George Bush as governor told Clinton he needed to set a date for withdrawel.
All evidence point to one solid fact: that is that Iraq had absolutely no interest or connection to the attack on the Pentagon or the Twin Towers.
The above leaves a world wide question about Bush and his gang's motives for attacking Iraq. It is an established fact it was not to protect America because Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are still free and still calling the shots nor was it for Iraqi freedom not even to this day.So the question Why Why??
Just as with JFK, it will take 40 years before and shreds of truth emerge about 911 and the complicity of this administration.
I, will be dead by then. I pity the next generation.
THE WTC TRAGEDY IS CLEARLY COMMITTED BY THE BIGGEST TERRORIST STATE IN THE UNIVERSE, ISRAEL.from 1998 until 2000, Israel has suffered the worst public relations disaster in its history. The election of mass murder Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister was the last straw for millions of decent minded people the world over. The UN Conference on Racism, which labeled Israel an “Apartheid state,” also signaled growing disapproval of Israel.
Then, suddenly, the attack on the World Trade Center changed the world’s mood back to Israel’s favor. Was this just a fortunate coincidence for Israel?
Therefore, Israeli leaders have launched terrorist attacks on America disguised as Arab attacks, because they knew that any Arab terrorist attack on America advances their own aims. They are fully aware that the bigger the attack against America; the more carnage, the better it is for Israel. Ariel Sharon learned an important lesson in Beirut. Rather than to directly commit atrocities against America as it did in the operation Suzannah and USS Liberty.
he Washington Times ran a story on September 10, 2001 about a 68-page study issued by the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies (SAMS). The study, issued by the elite Army officer’s school, detailed the dangers of a possible U.S. Army occupational force in the Mideast. Here is the article’s comment about the study’s view of the Israeli Mossad:
Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
Ironically, within 24 hours of the story’s publication, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was attacked. Could the “ruthless and cunning Mossad,”; as the U.S. Army officers describe it, covertly have been behind the attack?
When the terrorist like George Bush made his speech before Congress, it turns out that he made a significant error other than saying that the WTC attackers did it because they “hated freedom.” As a place for doing business and for employment, the world Trade Center was not a minimum wage or a MacDonald’s kind of place; it had highly paid, high tech and high level jobs and executive positions primarily in international finance, banking and stock trading. I asked myself how there could be only 130 Israelis dead, while there were an estimated 199 dead from Columbia and 428 from the Philippines?earching through hundreds of articles trying to track down the true Israeli death toll, I found a New York Times piece that clarified the precise number of Israelis who died in the World Trade Center attack. It turned out that of the 130 Israelis President Bush claimed had died in the World Trade Center, 129 of them were still alive. Only one Israeli had actually died. I was incredulous. “Good God,” I said to myself, “only one Israeli!”
Post a Comment
<< Home