It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Bush’s Uranium Lies: The Case For A Special Prosecutor That Could Lead To Impeachment
Francis T. Mandanici , DemocracyRising.US
Wednesday, 29 June 2005
In summary that analysis of the current public record (including the Senate intelligence committee's report of last summer) and the law reveals not only that the uranium claims were fraudulent but arguably violated two criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C., Sec. 1001 and 18 U.S.C., Sec. 371 Pdf, that prohibit making fraudulent statements to Congress and obstructing the functions of Congress.
A specific motive for the uranium claims that the Administration made would have been to thwart the efforts of Congress and the United Nations to delay the start of the war. At the time that the Administration made the uranium claims in January 2003, pending before Congress was a resolution, H.Con.Res.2, which expressed the sense of Congress that Congress should repeal its earlier war resolution because of Iraq's then current cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.
That pending resolution stated that Congress should reexamine the threat posed by Iraq and take more time to review the findings of the UN weapons inspectors. Rather than allow the UN weapons inspectors to finish their work, President Bush started the war.
The current public record is compelling enough to require the Justice Department to appoint an outside special counsel pursuant to Department regulations. There is currently a type of special counsel investigating the leak of the name of a CIA agent who happened to be the wife of Joseph Wilson who in an op-ed article was the first person to publicly challenge President Bush's uranium claim.