Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIronically, Bush's key defense against charges of intentional misrepresentation actually incriminates him further. As Bob Woodward reported in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet said that the case for Iraq's possession of nuclear weapons was a "slam dunk" in response to Bush's question, "This is the best we've got?" Obviously, then, Bush himself thought the evidence was weak. But he did not investigate further or correct past misstatements. Instead, knowing that his claims were unsupported, he continued to assert that Iraq posed an urgent threat and was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. That is fraud.
More Info
This article is being shared with TomDispatch.com.
-
Does the President Really Know Best?
Elizabeth de la Vega: OK, everyone who has studied the unitary executive theory of the presidency, raise your hand. Anyone? A former prosecutor examines what's behind Bush's legal fig leaf.
-
Shoot the Moon
Elizabeth de la Vega: How realistic is it to stop the Bush Administration from pursuing its war agenda? Former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega offers some hard-core advice about how to challenge the status quo.
-
Letters
-
Scooter Libby's Doomed Defense
Elizabeth de la Vega: Capitalizing on Bob Woodward's revelation that he was one of the first to learn about Valerie Plame's CIA status, Scooter Libby's legal team hopes that will get their client off the hook. That turkey won't fly.
-
The White House Criminal Conspiracy
Elizabeth de la Vega: The Bush Administration should be prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud the United States by using half-truths and recklessly false statements to lead the country into an illegal war. This article is a collaboration with TomDispatch.com.
The evidence shows, then, that from early 2002 to at least March 2003, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force, thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
To what standards should we hold our government officials? Certainly standards as high as those Bush articulated for corporate officials. Higher, one would think. The President and Vice President and their appointees take an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. If they fail to leave their campaign tactics and deceits behind--if they use the Oval Office to trick the public and Congress into supporting a war--we must hold them accountable. It's not a question of politics. It's a question of law.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
