NAILED

We got 'im:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH

But today, Bush says that:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.

Excuse me, but doesn't this mean he lied to comply with the provisions of PL 107-243? And is that not an impeachable offense?

Bold section for emphasis, I presume, by The Left Coaster. Major, major kudos to TLC for this one.

Tom Tomorrow and Daily Kos are all over this as well.

It's a good thing for Bush this wasn't a major lie like fooling around with a consenting intern. Then he'd be in real trouble.

Ah, who am I kidding? He is in real trouble. An alert poster on DKos notes that "including doesn't mean only," which is likely to be Rove's (craven nitpicky definition of is style) defense, but the letter doesn't leave enough fudge factor. The only mention of the word "nation" is under the September 11th section. The only readable meaning of the letter, by literal translation or connotation, is that Bush was justifying the attack on Iraq by a direct correlation to its involvement in the September 11th attack. Except, of course, he just admitted that it wasn't involved.

NAILED.

Here's the official White House page with the letter to Congress, but don't be surprised if it vanishes soon. Fear not, however, we (like several other lefty bloggers 8^) have screen-capped it for posterity.

And here's the article. The quote is from an interview on CNN with John King. Here's a transcript excerpt from Busy Busy Busy.

Hot damn, we GOT him!

(/) Roland X
Na na na na....na na na na...hey hey-ey...GOOD-BYE!