WEAPONS REPORT REVEALS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
by Jason Leopold
published by The Progressive Trail
John Dean, the former counsel to President Richard Nixon, made a case last year for impeaching President George W. Bush if the president intentionally misled Congress and the public into backing a war with Iraq. "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked," Dean wrote in a June 6, 2003 column for findlaw.com. "Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose." On Wednesday, a 918-page report released by the Iraqi Survey Group, headed by former United Nations weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, said Iraq eliminated all of its illicit arms programs in the mid-1990s, shortly after the first Gulf War. In other words, Iraq wasn't a threat Bush's dire warning turned out to be misleading and, as we now know, factually wrong, and, even worse, lies. That's grounds for impeachment. "Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness," Dean wrote in a June 6 column. "A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation." Some of Bush's most frightening statements about Iraq's non-existent weapons program: * "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." (Radio Address, October 5, 2002) "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." "We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." (Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, October 7, 2002). "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." (State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003). Remember, this a government that impeached a president for accepting sexual favors in the oval office and lying about it. You would think that the punishment for taking a country to war on false pretenses would be worse.

Poland aims for Iraq troop pullout by end of 2005
PARIS (AFP) - Poland said that it aims to withdraw all of its 2,500 troops from Iraq during the course of next year, a major disappointment for Washington which sees Warsaw as one of its staunchest allies in Iraq.
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said Monday after talks in Paris that no firm date to complete the withdrawal had been decided yet, but that Poland hoped "to finish our mission at the end of 2005."
Poland is the fourth largest troop contributor to the US-led coalition in Iraq, but there is strong popular opposition at home to the deployment.
Kwasniewski's remarks here after talks with French President Jacques Chirac followed confusion in Warsaw, where the defence minister announced the troop withdrawal only to be contradicted by other top government figures.
The president said the situation in Iraq would be different after January, when general elections are to take place, supposedly the last step in setting up a legitimate Iraqi government.
"That is the reason why we decided to speak with the Iraqis and with our coalition partners, the United States, about a reduction of the Polish forces from January 1 and maybe to finish our mission at the end of 2005," he said.
Asked if there was a firm date, he replied: "No, this is not decided."
Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski in Warsaw had already announced in newspaper and radio interviews that Poland would withdraw its 2,500 troops from the country by the end of December 2005.
But as the issue provoked controversy, he later clarified his comments made in interviews with Polish public radio and daily Gazeta Wyborcza, saying they reflected his "personal view".
Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz distanced himself from the defence minister's statement, saying Poland did not want to "betray its ally" the United States.
And in a sign of the extreme sensitivity of the issue, Prime Minister Marek Belka said he had not been consulted and would seek clarification from Szmajdzinski, the PAP news agency reported.
Until now the Polish government had only said it would reduce its military presence in Iraq in 2005.
Analysts noted that the centre-left government faces heavy domestic criticism over the Polish military presence in Iraq ahead of elections next year.
But a planned pullout by Poland will spark dismay in Washington, where US President George W. Bush is under criticism over the troubled US-led occupation of Iraq as he seeks re-election next month.
"The Bush administration is of course going to be disappointed," political analyst Krzysztof Bobinski told AFP.
In last week's TV debate with Democratic challenger John Kerry, Bush specifically mentioned the Polish contribution.
Poland sent 2,500 troops to Iraq last year in the wake of the US-led invasion and heads up a multinational division of 6,000 soldiers in south-central Iraq.
But the intervention has proven costly. Seventeen Polish nationals have died in Iraq -- 13 soldiers and four civilians -- including three soldiers killed in an attack last month near the central Iraqi city of Hilla.
According to the latest poll, more than 70 percent of Poles are opposed to the presence of their country's troops in Iraq.
Parliamentary elections are due next year in Poland, with the ruling Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) party which sent Polish troops to Iraq currently credited with only seven percent support.
Moreover, its minority coalition partner, the Labour Union (UP), has threatened to withhold its support from prime minister Belka's government in a no confidence motion on October 15 unless it gives a firm timetable for an Iraqi pullout.
"The reason is we have elections coming up next year and the SLD wants to be able to say during the election campaign this is not an issue because we are withdrawing the troops by the end of 2005," Bobinski said.

Moore says stand up to Bush
By Lateefa Morehouse, The Oracle
Using his humor and sarcasm to convey messages on a subject that is everything but humorous, Michael Moore said his goal is to get American people to vote President George W. Bush out of office.
Moore's visit to the USF Sun Dome on Sunday was part of his 60-city swing-state tour. Calling it his "Slacker Uprising Tour," Moore was making an effort to get millions of traditional non-voters to vote on Nov. 2. Moore's goal is to see that over 56 percent of eligible voters participate in this election, which has not happened since 1968.
"We should all be in church today. That's where we'll need to be if we get four more years of Bush," Moore said.
Even though he does not think Kerry is the best candidate for office, he urges people to vote for Kerry just to get Bush out of office.
Moore said Ralph Nader, the Reform Party nominee, is the only candidate that is right on the issues. Although Moore supports him, he said Nader "is a diversion and should not run."
"His own party does not want him to run. The people's stakes are too high," he said.
Admitting that he is a good friend of Nader, Moore said, "It feels good to vote for Nader, but we have to put our feelings aside for the greater good."
Nader is struggling to get on the presidential candidate ballot in states across the nation. In 2000, when he ran as the Green Party nominee, Nader took thousands of Florida votes, causing many to say he cost Democratic nominee Al Gore the election.
In attempts to get Bush out of office, the Green Party and many others do not want him to run for fear he may take votes away from Kerry.
When Moore spotted two girls holding Nader posters leaving, he yelled "Don't go. Find a seat." The girls were hesitant to stay when Moore said, "Stay, we're all in this together," stopping the girls from leaving the building. "Don't disown him; just join us in removing George W. Bush."
During his speech, laced with jokes about Bush and Republicans, he mainly touched on points conveying why people who normally don't vote should. Moore explained that women, the young and the disenfranchised do not vote. He said these groups of people make up the 50 percent of eligible voters who don't vote.
"I know a lot of young people don't vote, that's why we're here," Moore said. The number one concern for college students if Bush is re-elected, Moore said, is the potential implementation of a military draft.
Moore also said that college students should beware of Bush because his administration will cut financial aid.
"Money for college loans and assistance has been cut back and de-funded by the federal government," he said. "College loans are a form of indentured servitude," which is another reason why Moore said it is urgent for young people to vote Bush out of office.
Earlier this year, Moore sparked controversy in his hotly debated political film Fahrenheit 9/11. The documentary attacked Bush's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq. The documentary has been an unprecedented event in American popular culture. In the first three weeks of its showing it grossed $100 million. Although it seems to have polarized viewers in different directions, it may be a potential factor in the presidential race.
In response to the controversy surrounding the validity of the documentary, Moore will be releasing the Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader. It will present extensive documentation backing up all the facts in the film, Bush and Iraq; viewers' letters to Moore; and photographs and cartoon editorials inspired by the documentary. The screenplay lays out the entire film and singles out all of the controversial claims made in the film's narration. It pairs them with annotated source material, including excerpts that show exactly where he got his information.
Moore said his voting advocacy and attack on Bush are his way of "preaching to a choir," the choir being those 50 percent who don't vote.
"Its like I'm preaching to the choir, a choir that is asleep, and I'm trying to wake them up."

Why I will vote for John Kerry for President -
by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower
by John Eisenhower / The Union Leader
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.