To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (31333 ) 6/18/2004 11:57:52 AM From: American Spirit Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568 Bush and Cheney lied, did use Iraq-9-11 excuse to invade Iraq. "Where did President Bush get the legal authority to invade Iraq? From the congressional resolution adopted in late 2002. That resolution authorized the president to use force if he determined, and informed Congress within 48 hourse, that acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. That was the only circumstance in which war was authorized. Sure enough, on the first day of the war, Bush sent a formal message to Congress certifying that the condition had been met: invading Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. That "including" is cute, but it can scarcely be denied that Bush conveyed to Congress--as the sole substantive justification for the war--the notion that Iraq "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks. Otherwise, why include that phrase in a resolution, and a presidential determination, that were directed solely at the question of whether to invade Iraq? Plausible deniability is one thing, but the implication here is quite clear. When, oh when, will the press start using the L word (and I'm not talking about the Showtime drama)? Let's recall the impeachment of President Clinton. Lots of his defenders said, in effect, "So he lied about sex. Big deal." The response was, "It wasn't just a lie about sex. It was a lie under oath; it was perjury." I thought the response had considerable force, even if Clinton's lie might not technically have constituted the crime of perjury (although it arguably did) and even if I didn't think the offense rose to the level of impeachment. But let's take a look at Bush's statement to Congress about the casus belli. It wasn't true, and it's hard to argue that a president's certification to Congress regarding its exercise of its constitutional power to declare war is less important than testimony in a civil action against the president in his private capacity. Now, maybe it wasn't quite a lie; maybe Bush thought it was true, in spite of the absence of evidence for it. If so, Bush is even less competent than he's looked lately. But in any case, what he said was false. And now, his flaks are trying to pretend he never said it. But he did. And he didn't just say it; he went to war on it. (P.S. to the NY Post: when you say "a Saddam-Osama alliance is not why America opened a front in Iraq as part of the War on Terror," you're lying. It may not have been the only reason, but it was the one that Bush gave Congress. And the fact that a majority of the public believed at the outset of the war that Saddam had been involved in 9/11--a misconception fostered by the administration and the Murdoch media, including the Post--surely contributed mightily to the public's support for the war at its outset.) posted by Arnold P. California at 1:43 PM Comments (6)