by Deb Cupples | Rewind five years or so. Remember the multiple rationales marketed by the Bush Adminsitration (and by many unquestioning media outlets) meant to persuade us taxpayers that our nation should invade Iraq?
The first claim, as I recall, was Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Next was Iraq bought uranium. Then came Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks. Just days before a gaggle of gullible journalists were "embedded" with our Iraq-bound troops, the battle cry became "Free the Iraqi people."
Back then, I thought: the man doth insist too much. If Bush had one valid reason for invading Iraq, why was his team trying to hard-sell us ordinary folks with more "reasons"? Back then, my mother thought I was merely being hyper-cynical.
Yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers sent letters to potential witnesses, thereby officially launching the probe into whether Bush Administration officials had falsified documents meant to help (falsely) justify our nation's invasion of Iraq.
To give you an idea of the specific allegations, I've copied excerpts from Conyers' letter to former CIA Director George Tenet:
"I am writing to follow up on recent serious allegations regarding the creation of a false letter from Tahir Jalil Habbush, Saddam Hussein's former Chief of Intelligence, to Saddam Hussein.
"The letter, which was allegedly backdated to July 1, 2001, attempted to establish an operational link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the period before the 9/11 attacks by specifically stating that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had received training in Iraq. At the time of the alleged decision in 2003 to concoct the false letter, the Vice President's Office had been reportedly pressuring the CIA to prove this connection as justification to invade Iraq....
"According to recent allegations, in your capacity as Director of the CIA, you received a direct order from the White House to draft this false letter. After receiving the order to create the false letter, you reportedly tasked Rob Richer... to execute the letter...." (emphasis added)
Below are links to PDFs of the letters that Conyers sent to other potential witnesses:
I wonder if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still averse to considering the impeachment of President Bush -- and still cock-sure that there's no evidence (not anywhere) of high crimes or misdemeanors on our current president's part.
Why is Speaker Pelosi so important to impeachments efforts? Because 1) the U.S. House, alone, has the power to impeach a president (Article II, U.S. Constitution), and 2) the House Speaker largely controls what the House does.
A few weeks ago, legal scholar Jonathan Turley explained Speaker Pelosi's ever-changing rationales for blocking impeachment since she became Speaker in 2007 -- and Turley pointed out just how unburdened by logic her rationales are.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* McClellan to Obama: Don't Investigate Bush Administration
* Inspector General Blocked Investigations of Waste & Fraud?
* High Cost of Private Contractors: Getting us Coming & Going
* Time to Get Really Serious About Contractor Fraud
* Blackwater in Hot Water Again
* Have U.S. Officials Protected Blackwater?
* Defense Dept. Rewarding Bad Contractor Performance?
* Billions over Baghdad: Poor Accounting Allowed Waste & Fraud
* Contractors Offering Bribes to Army Personnel?
* Anti-Regulation Guy to be Top Energy Regulator
.
I hope impreachment is coming soon. Great blog!
Posted by: Robert | August 21, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Robert,
thanks! I hope it comes soon, too.
Posted by: Deb Cupples | August 22, 2008 at 10:52 PM