Anzar Transcript: Bush Lies

Of course this is nothing we didn't already know, from the PNAC docs. and the Downing Street Memos. The Bushites had been planning this war since long before they stole election 2000. Still, it is another nail in the coffin of this presidency.

Transcript Reveals Impeachable Offenses by Bush Re: Iraq War

El Pais published a transcript of the conversation between George W. Bush, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, and Condoleeza Rice held at Crawford before the Iraq War. Bush is typically bullheaded, impatient, conspiratorial, bullying, arrogant, ill-informed and way over-optimistic. The transcript shows the true colors of the man-- a sort of thuggish, ignorant Mafia don-- who destroyed the United States and destroyed Iraq. (The introductory El Pais article is translated here.)

At one point Aznar prophetically says, "The thing that worries me is your optimism."

The transcript, it seems to me, provides a whole rack of smoking guns that could be a basis for impeaching George W. Bush. The transcript shows that Bush consciously intended to go to war without a United Nations Security Council resolution. The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a treaty signatory (so that it has the force of American law), forbids any nation to launch an aggressive war on another country. The only two legal mechanisms for war are either that it came in response to a direct attack or that the attacker gained a UNSC authorization. The transcript shows Bush actively plotting to sidestep the UNSC if he could not, gangster-like, threaten its members into compliance.

The second grounds for impeachment is that Bush rejected out of hand a deal brokered by the Egyptians whereby Saddam Hussein would leave the country with a billion dollars and some documents about his WMD program. Reuters reports:

'The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction," Bush was quoted as saying at the meeting one month before the U.S.-led invasion.'

The transcript in Spanish then says (my translation):

'Aznar: Is it certain that any possibility exists that Saddam Hussein will go into exile?

Bush: The possibility exists, including that he will be assassinated.

Aznar: Exile with a guarantee?

Bush: No guarantee! He is a thug, a terrorist, a war criminal.

Bush goes on to say, "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is. We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

In other words, Bush could have sent Saddam off to exile in Saudi Arabia and avoided the whole war, but refused to do so because of the family vendetta between the Bushes and the Tikritis. Nearly 4,000 US soldiers have died and thousands have been wounded because Bush would not take the deal Saddam offered him. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and millions displaced.

Going to war unnecessarily is an impeachable offense.

The whole immense catastrophe could have been avoided.

There is more evidence of thuggery in the transcript:

Excerpts courtesy Harper's:

' Bush to American Allies: support war or starve

[Condoleezza Rice has just described the diplomatic situation to Bush and Aznar, explaining that Iraq is continuing to insist that it has no weapons of mass destruction.]

Bush: This is like Chinese water torture. We have to put an end to it.

Aznar: I agree, but it would be best to have as much support as possible. Have a little patience.

Bush: My patience has ended. I’m not thinking of waiting beyond mid-March.

Aznar: I’m not asking that you have endless patience. Simply that everything is done to [have maximum international support].

Bush: Countries like Mexico, Chile, Angola, and Cameroon should know that what’s at stake is the security of the United States . . . [Chilean President Ricardo] Lagos should know that the Free Trade Accord with Chile is awaiting Senate confirmation and a negative attitude about this could put ratification in danger. Angola is receiving Millennium Account funds [to help alleviate poverty] and that could be jeopardized also if he’s not supportive…

Aznar: Tony [Blair] wants to wait until March 14.

Bush: I prefer the 10th. This is like a good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t care if I’m the bad cop and he’s the good cop.


Bush on Iraq: the future is bright

“We’re developing a very strong package of humanitarian aid. We can win [the war] without much destruction. We’re planning for a post-Saddam Iraq and believe there is a strong base to build a better future. Iraq has a good bureaucracy and relatively strong civil society.”

Bush on French President Chirac: Mister Arab

“Chirac knows perfectly well the reality. His intelligence services have explained. The Arab countries are sending Chirac a clear message: Saddam Hussein must go. The problem is that Chirac thinks he’s Mister Arab and is making life impossible.” '

Reuters has more:

' In case the war endangered energy supplies, "the Saudis would help us and put all the oil necessary into the market," said Bush, who considered Europeans to be complacent about Saddam.

"Maybe it's because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim, lots of Europeans think everything's okay with him," he said. . . '

He was accusing the Europeans of racism! He!

posted by Juan Cole

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Goopers Thinking Impeachment?

Oh, puleze! The only reason any of them would be thinking about mpeachment is to save their own party. Republicans are Approaching Impeachment Mentality by Rob Kall Page 1 of 1 page(s) http://www.opednews.com

Republicans in the senate are taking itty bitty baby steps down the road towards impeachment.

They're not talking about or thinking about impeachment yet, but the recent steps leading GOP senators are taking, speaking out against the Iraq war are the beginning steps necessary to break the Bush loyalty mindset.

For the past seven years, Republican senators have been marching in lockstep with the idiots in the Whitehouse. Finally, facing an angry, dissatisfied electorate, these GOP senators are also facing reality. Supporting Bush and his policies is bad for their job futures.

This is creating a new mentality-- an "I can disagree with Dubya mentality"-- an "I better disagree if I'm going to keep my job" mentality.

It's a bit like getting into the pool the first time in a new season. You have to get wet, have to brace yourself for the chill. But once you're in, you get used to it and it's easy to get out and get back in a second and third time.

It's a bit like losing your virginity. Once you've done the nasty, you don't have the old barrier, the worry about doing what you've never done before, as a concern anymore.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Republicans are ready to impeach. But the process of accepting the reality that they can publicly disagree with Bush, reject his policy and stand against him is a good thing for the impeachment movement, and really a good thing for America, which sorely needs the patriotic assistance of the GOP in re-asserting the rule of law, the constitution and ethical political engagement.

It is inevitable that more GOP senators will join the get out of Iraq fast already bandwagon. Even seeing their colleagues doing it is having a mental effect upon them-- particularly the incumbents up for election next year. The wall is being eroded.

Note that impeachment is not something that is necessary in the senate. Dave Lindorff has eloquently argued that the whole idea of impeachment was conceived as something the house of representatives does. He writes in his article Forget a Senate Trial, Impeachment is its own Punishment.

"Under the Constitution, there is no obligation for the Senate to even hold a trial after someone is impeached. It is an option, which is up to the will of the Senate.

When the Founding Fathers drew up the impeachment clause, they envisioned it as its own punishment. Trial and removal were seen as a wholly separate process, in addition to impeachment.

Under the Constitution, after investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of a president or other federal officer in an impeachment panel composed of the members of the House Judiciary Committee, which would then approve articles of impeachment, the House would vote on whether to impeach the executive.

If they concluded that Bush or Cheney, in this case, had abused their power, or had damaged the nation, or committed treason or bribery, they could then vote to impeach.

At that point the president and/or vice president would stand impeached.

For all time, they would be known as defilers of the Constitution--or perhaps as traitors, depending upon the nature of the articles approved by a House majority.

Their nefarious actions—the lying to Congress and American people, the violation of international laws, the violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments, the subversion of elections, the obstruction of justice, the criminal negligence, the war crimes, the usurping of the power of the Congress and the Courts—would all stand publicly condemned by the People’s Body."

That said, it is nice to know that there are many hearings going on that are cooking the impeachment soup hotter and hotter and that the Iraq war is forcing the members of congress in both houses to re-adjust their Bush loyalty mentality. Things are moving in the right direction.

Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, and organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

To Impeach or Not to Impeach
By David Swanson


There are those who believe that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses but that we should not try to impeach them.

In this discussion, Bob McAdams lays out the arguments.

Then there are those, like myself, who think we need to put everything we've got into impeachment now.

Here's my case.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of people who see both sides and want to hash it out and mull it over, as in this discussion that followed Bob's and my remarks at a Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice gathering in a living room in Charlottesville, Va.

Others may find this a useful exchange and want to engage in a similar group conversation.Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.orgAuthors

Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What the Hell Are We Waiting For?

Congress must act, before it's too late, if it isn't already!


The Taliban is reclaiming the still failed state of Afghanistan. Iraq is becoming a failed state and has spun out of control. Bush is showing every sign of dragging the US into another fruitless and unjustifiable war with Iran and/or Syria. American troops are now fighting in Somalia to help make East Africa safe for Exxon and Chevron. Civil rights and human rights are evaporating like dew on a summer morning. This isn’t a war on terrorism. It is naked terrorism itself.

In an eerie imitation of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush has deployed US warships to the Persian Gulf and has arranged to arm “friendly” (client?) nations in the region with Patriot Missiles. (Per usual, Bush’s friends stand to make a packet even if the missiles don’t work as well as advertised.) Rumor has it that black ops, aimed at creating political unrest and destabilizing the Iranian government, have been ongoing for some time. This past week Bush ordered US troops to trash the Iranian Embassy in Iraq and take prisoners; a clear provocation. War skeptics should remember that they have lost every bet when it comes to this president behaving sensibly.

George Bush’s latest attempt to achieve an as yet unknown goal in Iraq, ‘Le Surge,’ promises to be a blood bath that will dwarf anything we have seen to date.

Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who is taking over the coalition command in the wake of the latest Bush purge, claims to be a student of asymmetrical warfare. He has a plan.
US troops are now to leave their lairs and regularly engage with Iraqis in the streets. No more crouching in their heavily fortified bases between forays to hot spots. No more radicalizing the Iraqis by kicking in the the occasional wrong door. (I’m not criticizing the troops as much as the command that can’t seem to get the intelligence thing straight and who seem to think that speaking the local language and understanding the culture are optional.)
Petraeus goes on to say that by staying in their compounds, US soldiers lose touch with the Iraqi people and give the appearance of being fearful. He also doesn’t think US soldiers should engage in the indiscriminate use of force.

It sounds an awful lot like the Roman entertainment of throwing Christians to the lions. Toss some US soldiers into a hornet’s nest of angry Iraqis, tell them to hold their fire and look brave. Then kick back and see what happens. Rinse and repeat.

It’s easy to see why Bush selected Petraeus. They share the same character flaws; a tenuous grasp on reality and no ability to engage in critical thought.

Bush’s ex-commanders kept our soldiers in heavily fortified bases for good reason; to prevent unnecessary loss of life and to minimize the risks of deadly, urban warfare. Unlike Petraeus, they got the message that Iraqis strongly object to being killed in large numbers and having their country ripped out from under them. The last people the Iraqis want to stay in touch with are US soldiers.

All this isn’t going to end with fat and happy US and British multinationals milking the world of its wealth with its foot on the throat of billions of miserable but willing slaves. It’s going to end like a Shakespearian tragedy with everyone on stage dead.

With all due respect, Congress has no more important job than to rapidly and effectively remove Bush and Cheney’s collective hands from the levers of power. They need to tie Bush/Cheney up in knots before a probable attack on Iran becomes an accomplished fact. They need to put them back in their cages before they put any more US lives needlessly at risk and begin any more illegal wars anywhere else.

Congress has a number of powerful tools at its disposal; the power of the purse, impeachment, confirmation authority, subpoena power and special House Rules. Congress cannot stop at inquiry. It must block Bush’s ability to continue as he has begun.

The world has enough sorrow, injustice and misery without the US government manufacturing and exporting it in record quantities.

Carol Davidek-Waller Kirkland, WA