☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

More Impeachable Crimes Exposed

By The Reverend Published: December 6, 2007

George W. Bush has now been revealed to have purposely attempted to mislead the American people (for the second time) concerning whether a country was a nuclear threat requiring an urgent military response.

I have described in the past that Bush's crime concerning Iraq was his disinformation campaign leading up to invasion, focusing on some imminent, urgent threat from Iraq which never, ahem, existed.

The argument was never, contrary to wingnut lore, whether everybody agreed or not that Saddam probably had weapons. That never was the argument. It's used as a smokescreen by the Bush followers.

The argument was whether Saddam posed an imminent or urgent threat to America. Bush and Co. used language during the runup to Iraq that led Americans to believe Iraq was an imminent and urgent threat. The neo-cons wanted to go to war with Iraq and didn't want to tell Americans the truth about why.

That's what the Bush/Cheney cabal have now been exposed of doing again with Iran.

Dan Froomkin has an excellent post up showing how Bush chose his words extremely carefully seeking to convince his listeners that Iran, like Iraq before it, now posed an urgent threat requiring a military response.....once again a stated and implied urgent threat revolving around weapons and programs that weren't and aren't there......

A survey of Bush's remarks about Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2007 suggests that a shift took place somewhere between August 6 and August 9. There wasn't a change in his overall message, just his carefully chosen words.


On March 31: "Our position is that we would hope that nations would be very careful in dealing with Iran, particularly since Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and a major threat to world peace is if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon. . . .

"We respect the history of Iran, we respect the rich traditions of Iran. We, however, are deeply concerned about an Iranian government that is in violation of international accords in their attempt to develop a nuclear weapon."

On July 12: "[T]he same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers."


On Aug. 6 he said "it's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon."

From that point on, he started choosing his words more carefully.

Here he is on Aug. 9: "They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program. That, in itself, coupled with their stated foreign policy, is very dangerous for world stability. . . . It's a very troubling nation right now."

But it certainly didn't tame the overall message.

Here's Pat Buchanan, no liberal, on yesterday's Hardball explaining what Bush has done....

Bush was informed in August about new intelligence concerning Iran and from that point he chose his wording and phrasing differently, but still slyly asserting the same, "there's urgent danger", theme about Iran. Froomkin lays it out for all to see. It's exactly the same thing the White House did leading up to Iraq. This is further evidence of the impeachable crimes Bush and his criminal White House members have committed and attempted to commit again.

The crime is fraud against the American people through the use of communications of propaganda, leading the nation to war and attempting to lead us to war by propagandizing us about the nature of the threat. In both cases, Iraq and Iran, the intelligence did not call for urgent military action, and the neo-cons knew that. In both cases, the neo-cons tried to gin up a war, anyway.

I realize it's not fraudulently attempting to deceive in a civil suit (later dismissed) concerning consensual sex between adults but go ahead and impeach with the crimes you have, not the crimes wingnuts would have wanted. That's how one war criminal would have put it.



About This Blog

Prev Next