July 28, 2003

Graham defends argument for impeachment

As I predicted awhile back, Dean (D-Jeffords) will be
Carterized, Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) will be Gored and
Graham (D-Fraudida) will be Garrisoned...That is what
the propapunditgandists will be handed and that is
what they will attempt to feed the US electorate. BUT
at least in the case of Graham, it will not
take...Graham is a serious man: very smart, cunning,
psychologically strong, funny and DRIVEN...He does not
have "fire in the belly," as LNS Foreign Correspondent
Dunston Woods says, "he has fire in the heart." The
vast right-wing conspiracy (yes it exists, as
documented by Lyons/Conason's Hunting of The President
and corroborated by Brock's Blinded by The Right) will
claim that Graham is exploiting 9/11 and Iraq for his
political ambition, but it is clear that the truth is
the exact opposite: Graham is exploiting the 2004
presidential race to get the burning issue of what did
not happen before 9/11 and what should not have
happened over Iraq into the national debate at the
highest level. Listen, and remember you heard it hear,
Graham will break out from the pack, he will survive
the first few hurdles of the primary season and he
will be a contender...Here is the voice and character
of a leader....


Graham defends argument for impeachment
Sunday, July 27, 2003 Posted: 9:07 PM EDT (0107 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Bob Graham defended his
assertion that President Bush's actions in making the
case for the war in Iraq reach the standard of an
impeachable offense set by Republicans against former
President Clinton.

"Clearly, if the standard is now what the House of
Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill
Clinton, the actions of this president [are] much more
serious in terms of dereliction of duty," the Florida
Democrat and presidential hopeful said on "Fox News

Graham also charged that Bush "knowingly" misled the
American people about the reasons for going to war in
Iraq -- both by claiming that Iraq was trying to buy
uranium in Africa and by withholding information about
the length, danger and expense of postwar

"This president failed to tell the American people
what he knew about the consequences of military
victory in Iraq," Graham said on NBC's "Meet The
Press." "He understood what the cost was going to be.
He understood the casualties. He understood the
duration of time.

"None of that was shared with the American people. And
so we went to war, not only on the basis of weapons of
mass destruction that we may or may not find, but [we]
went to war without the knowledge of what the full
consequences would be."

Graham said on Fox that his comments about impeachment
amount to "a very academic discussion" because
Republicans control the House, which would have to
initiate any impeachment proceedings.

"Tom DeLay and the other leadership of the House of
Representatives are not going to impeach George W.
Bush," Graham said. "The good news is that in November
of 2004, the American people will have a chance to
both impeach and remove George W. Bush in one step."

But another prominent Democratic critic of the Iraq
war, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, said Sunday that
"the evidence doesn't support" Graham's comments about

"There is absolutely no evidence that the president
knowingly misled the American people," Durbin said on
CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." "I've never
made that charge, nor have I heard it made from any
credible source.

"But it is clear that those around [Bush] misled him,
and misled the American people indirectly, by making
certain that there were claims made that couldn't be
backed up with evidence."

Graham first made the comments July 17, after the
White House conceded that Bush's claims about Iraq's
pursuit of uranium in Africa, attributed to British
intelligence, should not have been included in his
State of the Union address because U.S. intelligence
could not verify them.

British officials say they stand behind the

Bush and administration officials have argued the
uranium claim was not central to their case for
removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But Graham
said on Fox that the claim was "absolutely" central to
the administration's rationale for going to war with

"This was described as not a preventive war but a
pre-emptive war. And the difference between preventive
and pre-emptive is how imminent is the threat," he
said. "And the most significant threat was nuclear.

"We've known that [Iraq has] had biological and
chemical [weapons] for a long time. But the fact
[Iraq] might be on the verge of having nuclear
capabilities is what made it so imminent and therefore
justified the pre-emptive war."

Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, is one of nine Democrats seeking their
party's nomination to oppose Bush next year.

Posted by richard at July 28, 2003 02:11 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?