Dubbyuh's big lie...

[OCA]

You see, Bully in his blind hatred of anything Republican fails to state that many politicians and heads of state on either side of the aisle all with access to the same intelligence believed that Sadaam had WMD and was a threat to the region and to a lesser extent the world as a whole, we've all seen the famous quotes now! Anyway, it is a fact that Sadaam had WMD and had used them in the past. Bully likes to think its fact that there weren't EVER WMD in Iraq when we all know that is true. Who is to say that Sadaam in the months leading up to the war did not dispose of his weapons or moved them to Syria. I think this issue is still yet to be finished. But Bully likes to believe innuendo to be fact and fact to be innuendo, its ok, just smile and say attaboy!

The Republic, if it survived the liberal fascism of the Clinton era will certainly come out smelling like a rose in '08.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You see, Bully in his blind hatred of anything Republican fails to state that many politicians and heads of state on either side of the aisle all with access to the same intelligence believed that Sadaam had WMD and was a threat to the region and to a lesser extent the world as a whole, we've all seen the famous quotes now! Anyway, it is a fact that Sadaam had WMD and had used them in the past. Bully likes to think its fact that there weren't EVER WMD in Iraq when we all know that is true. Who is to say that Sadaam in the months leading up to the war did not dispose of his weapons or moved them to Syria. I think this issue is still yet to be finished. But Bully likes to believe innuendo to be fact and fact to be innuendo, its ok, just smile and say attaboy!

The Republic, if it survived the liberal fascism of the Clinton era will certainly come out smelling like a rose in '08.

Sorry, but you know that is just so much crap. The Administration cherry picked the intel to suit their policy and then spun it mercilessly to make it fit the policy all the better. We now know that, contrary to the Bush Administrations claims, there were no WMD's in Iraq...After all, that was the primary and overarching rational for the Administration's decision to go to war with Iraq.

As for the weapons being trasferred to Syria, Charles Duelfer's final report put that right-wing myth to rest. No conclusive evidence of any weapons transfers was ever found. So you and Sean Hannity can continue to fulminate over some imagined weapons transfer to Syria all you want. You'll just look the bigger fools for it.

You obviously don't understand the definition of fascism. Let me refer you to <a href=http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm>The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism</a>. The ongoing message of the Bush administration is one of jingoistic nationalism...The Bush Administration has shown its utter disdain for human rights and international law, repeatedly...Scapegoats are everywhere, from uncatchable terrorists to the "liberal media". The Administration seeks to place the blame for its failures everywhere but at its own doorstep...One can't really say that the military reigns supreme as the Administration's actions are leaving it a hollow shell, but the willingness of the Administration to use the military for its own ends has been demonstrated in Iraq...The Administration's focus on "family values", it's opposition to abortion and same gender couples, and it's views on traditional gender roles are well known...The mass media fail to report on anything but the Michael Jackson trial, and let's not forget the 'Runaway Bride', Robert Blake and Scott Peterson. The mass media is cowed and will report on little that the Administration doesn't want it to...National security is the favorite curtain the Administration likes to hide behind whenever some scadal about the war in Iraq or in US detention facilities is about to erupt...We have recently seen the use of religious rhetoric by both the Republican congressional leadership and the POTUS and how different the rhetoric is from the reality...While Clinton was one of the best friends big business ever had in teh Oval Office, Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership have raised 'pay-to-play' to stunning new heights...Labor is regarded as a thorn in the side of corporate profiatbility, as we see from jobs being outsourced to nations with slave labor wages and few, or no worker protections...The Bush Administration is the omst profoundly anti-intellectual administration to occupy the White House in living memory as witnessed by cuts in education funding, Head -Start, the grossly underfunded 'No Child Left Behind' program etc...The USA PATRIOT Act gives the administration and law enforcement agencies broader and more sweeping powers to intrude on the lives of ordinary American's under the rubric of teh "war on terror"...Cronyism and corruption are endemic to the Administration and the Republican caongressional leadership...AS for fraudulent elections, there are those who would argue that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. But that as neither here nor there as the installation of the Bush administation in the White House is <i>fait accompli</i>.

As you can see the label of "fascist" can be more appropriately applied to the Bush Administration. And being the slavish admirer of the Administration that you are, you might be considered a fascist in some circles. One should never mistake fascsim for patriotism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry, but you know that is just so much crap. The Administration cherry picked the intel to suit their policy and then spun it mercilessly to make it fit the policy all the better. We now know that, contrary to the Bush Administrations claims, there were no WMD's in Iraq...After all, that was the primary and overarching rational for the Administration's decision to go to war with Iraq.

As for the weapons being trasferred to Syria, Charles Duelfer's final report put that right-wing myth to rest. No conclusive evidence of any weapons transfers was ever found. So you and Sean Hannity can continue to fulminate over some imagined weapons transfer to Syria all you want. You'll just look the bigger fools for it.

You obviously don't understand the definition of fascism. Let me refer you to <a href=http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm>The Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism</a>. The ongoing message of the Bush administration is one of jingoistic nationalism...The Bush Administration has shown its utter disdain for human rights and international law, repeatedly...Scapegoats are everywhere, from uncatchable terrorists to the "liberal media". The Administration seeks to place the blame for its failures everywhere but at its own doorstep...One can't really say that the military reigns supreme as the Administration's actions are leaving it a hollow shell, but the willingness of the Administration to use the military for its own ends has been demonstrated in Iraq...The Administration's focus on "family values", it's opposition to abortion and same gender couples, and it's views on traditional gender roles are well known...The mass media fail to report on anything but the Michael Jackson trial, and let's not forget the 'Runaway Bride', Robert Blake and Scott Peterson. The mass media is cowed and will report on little that the Administration doesn't want it to...National security is the favorite curtain the Administration likes to hide behind whenever some scadal about the war in Iraq or in US detention facilities is about to erupt...We have recently seen the use of religious rhetoric by both the Republican congressional leadership and the POTUS and how different the rhetoric is from the reality...While Clinton was one of the best friends big business ever had in teh Oval Office, Bush and the Republican Congressional leadership have raised 'pay-to-play' to stunning new heights...Labor is regarded as a thorn in the side of corporate profiatbility, as we see from jobs being outsourced to nations with slave labor wages and few, or no worker protections...The Bush Administration is the omst profoundly anti-intellectual administration to occupy the White House in living memory as witnessed by cuts in education funding, Head -Start, the grossly underfunded 'No Child Left Behind' program etc...The USA PATRIOT Act gives the administration and law enforcement agencies broader and more sweeping powers to intrude on the lives of ordinary American's under the rubric of teh "war on terror"...Cronyism and corruption are endemic to the Administration and the Republican caongressional leadership...AS for fraudulent elections, there are those who would argue that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. But that as neither here nor there as the installation of the Bush administation in the White House is <i>fait accompli</i>.

As you can see the label of "fascist" can be more appropriately applied to the Bush Administration. And being the slavish admirer of the Administration that you are, you might be considered a fascist in some circles. One should never mistake fascsim for patriotism.

Just a couple quick points:

WMD was never the only reason given.

You can't prove weapons were not transferred or hidden. That's a fact. Why give saddam the benefit of the doubt? This is not a court of law where the burden of proof is clearly delineated. You need to be a little more spacious in your thinking and quit limiting yourself to such narrow interpretations. Think more holistically, weigh other factors, U.N. resolutsions, or the inherent evil of saddam hussein, for instance. Question your reactionary beliefs such as "we cannot topple saddam because we supported him against Iran before." this is so simplistic and childish. Alliances shift. Adults know this.

As for the unproven personal attacks contained above, they are simply that, personal attacks, and thus, ineffective as persuasive arguments, for thinking people.

 

[Bullypulpit]

People like Bully easily forget or choose to ignore the fact WMDs were NEVER the issue - at issue was Saddam's Failure to PROVE he had no WMDs, whether he had them or not was irrelevant.

<blockquote>"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.” " - Bush, George, 9/26/2002
</blockquote>

The facts state otherwise,

<blockquote>"Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03"</blockquote>

<blockquote>"[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” " - Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/2002</blockquote>

Again, the facts state otherwise...

<blockquote>"Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay</blockquote>

<blockquote>
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” " - Dick Cheney, 8/26/2002</blockquote>

And, yet again, the facts speak for themselves...

<blockquote>"Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03"</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And some of the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen, key judgments by our intelligence community that Saddam Hussein could have a nuclear weapons by the end of the decade, if left unchecked . . . that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program. " - Condoleeza Rice, 7/31/2003</blockquote>

Are you seeing a pattern here yet...?

<blockquote>"Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers said President Bush ignored warnings that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored. Knight Ridder later reported, Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies. - Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03, 6/28/03; CBS News, 6/7/03

In what now appears to have been a cascade of errors, U.S. intelligence overestimated Iraq's weapons progress in several key areas. - Knight Ridder, 2/6/04"</blockquote>

The issue of whether or not Saddam had "proved" that he didn't posess WMD's, was irrelevant, as the administration was claiming that he actually had them.

Nice try...falls short of the mark though.

All quotes sourced from <a href=http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702>HERE</a>

 

[Bullypulpit]

Just a couple quick points:

WMD was never the only reason given.

You can't prove weapons were not transferred or hidden. That's a fact. Why give saddam the benefit of the doubt? This is not a court of law where the burden of proof is clearly delineated. You need to be a little more spacious in your thinking and quit limiting yourself to such narrow interpretations. Think more holistically, weigh other factors, U.N. resolutsions, or the inherent evil of saddam hussein, for instance. Question your reactionary beliefs such as "we cannot topple saddam because we supported him against Iran before." this is so simplistic and childish. Alliances shift. Adults know this.

As for the unproven personal attacks contained above, they are simply that, personal attacks, and thus, ineffective as persuasive arguments, for thinking people.

No, but everything took a distant back-seat to the WMD. Charles Duelfer's report provides no compelling or conclusive evicdence that there was ever a transfer of weapons to Syria, just as there is no evidence that Saddam ever had such weapons. It seems commonsensical to have solid, compelling evidence before making the decision to go to war.

America was not taken to war with Iraq because of Saddam Husseins "inherent evil", which he was and is...American was led to war on a tissue of lies, promulgated by the Bush administration.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, but everything took a distant back-seat to the WMD. Charles Duelfer's report provides no compelling or conclusive evicdence that there was ever a transfer of weapons to Syria, just as there is no evidence that Saddam ever had such weapons. It seems commonsensical to have solid, compelling evidence before making the decision to go to war.

America was not taken to war with Iraq because of Saddam Husseins "inherent evil", which he was and is...American was led to war on a tissue of lies, promulgated by the Bush administration.

Because something is not in the duelfer report does not mean it didn't happen. Again, don't limit your thinking.

"tissue of lies promulgated by the Bush administration" =

What a foul regurgitant.

 

[OCA]

There is no soilid evidence of weapons transfer to Syria just as there is no solid evidence of there being no WMD in Iraq at the time of invasion. What is fact is that at one time Sadaam posessed and used WMD especially on his own citizenry, therefore the administration is overwhelmingly and without argument right to err on the side of caution and take Sadaam out before anything else happened. There were U.N. resolutions blown off, an invasion of Kuwait etc. etc. etc., we had every reason to go in.

All the rest of Bully's crap, is well crap. If you really read his shit, it all boils down to hatred of everything Republican. If Bush cured AIDS, cancer and brought peace on earth Bully would still hate him, its called being a slave to ideology, a failed ideology and an ideology frought with danger to the constitution.

The fascism part is a joke, that is clear to everyone but you. Tell me Bully, how has your personal life been curtailed and effected from a Bush policy?

 

[no1tovote4]

If Bush cured AIDS, cancer and brought peace on earth Bully would still hate him, its called being a slave to ideology, a failed ideology and an ideology frought with danger to the constitution.

Well, if he did that he would be solely responsible of the loss of jobs for all the doctors and nurses that work in AIDS hospices and in Oncology wards. Let alone all of those people that manufacture weapons! Hooo! He would be responsible for the "largest loss of jobs in American history!"

 

[Bullypulpit]

There is no soilid evidence of weapons transfer to Syria just as there is no solid evidence of there being no WMD in Iraq at the time of invasion. What is fact is that at one time Sadaam posessed and used WMD especially on his own citizenry, therefore the administration is overwhelmingly and without argument right to err on the side of caution and take Sadaam out before anything else happened. There were U.N. resolutions blown off, an invasion of Kuwait etc. etc. etc., we had every reason to go in.

All the rest of Bully's crap, is well crap. If you really read his shit, it all boils down to hatred of everything Republican. If Bush cured AIDS, cancer and brought peace on earth Bully would still hate him, its called being a slave to ideology, a failed ideology and an ideology frought with danger to the constitution.

The fascism part is a joke, that is clear to everyone but you. Tell me Bully, how has your personal life been curtailed and effected from a Bush policy?

You simply can't admit that the invasion of Iraq was based upon the thinnest of evidence if not out right lies promulgated by the Bush administration...can you? It was a war of aggression in violation of US and international law, but then the US is a power unto itself and can act as it wishes...Right?

If Bush lived up to the Christian ideals he openly espouses, he might be a decent human being and POTUS...but he doesn't. He, and others in the Republican leadership wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity for nothing more than political gain. They have clearly forgotten that they serve the country...Not their political party...Not their campaign contributors...The whole country. And yes, the ideology being pushed by this Administration is a failed ideology and a threat to the Constitution. But you fail to understand that threat and, worst of all, you are a willing dupe to those who are posing the threat.

The only joke I see here is you...A dupe, and a poor one at that.

 

[theim]

You simply can't admit that the invasion of Iraq was based upon the thinnest of evidence if not out right lies promulgated by the Bush administration...can you? It was a war of aggression in violation of US and international law, but then the US is a power unto itself and can act as it wishes...Right?

If Bush lived up to the Christian ideals he openly espouses, he might be a decent human being and POTUS...but he doesn't. He, and others in the Republican leadership wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity for nothing more than political gain. They have clearly forgotten that they serve the country...Not their political party...Not their campaign contributors...The whole country. And yes, the ideology being pushed by this Administration is a failed ideology and a threat to the Constitution. But you fail to understand that threat and, worst of all, you are a willing dupe to those who are posing the threat.

The only joke I see here is you...A dupe, and a poor one at that.

were you actually, physically able to type all of that with a straight face?

 

[Annie]

<blockquote>Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02</blockquote>

These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.

On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:

<blockquote>C (Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.</blockquote>

Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.

Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.

Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000, while others place them at over 20,000.

How many more must die for a lie?

Citations:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18034

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s1354084.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

I knew there had to be something that would speak clearly for what I thought on this. I also remembered this had come out at the time and so it did:

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp

June 06, 2005, 8:01 a.m.
Causing a Commotion
“Downing Street Memo” is old news.

It is July 2002. A British report notes that Prime Minister Tony Blair had “decided Britain must back any US assault and had ordered defence planners to begin the preparations for a new war in the Gulf.” The report claims “President Bush has already made up his mind. This is going to happen. It is a given … What we are waiting for is to be told the details of how and when and where.”

A shocking secret document recently leaked from Whitehall? No, it is the London Observer, in an article published July 21, 2002, p. 2. Two days later nearly identical language would be recorded in the so-called "Downing Street Memo," the minutes of a British cabinet meeting recorded by foreign-policy aide Matthew Rycroft and published “gotcha!” style days before the recent parliamentary election.

The memo raises three issues dear to the hearts of President Bush's critics — the timing of the decision to go to war with Saddam, the WMD rationale, and the use (read: abuse) of intelligence to create the casus belli. One paragraph in the memo conveniently contains all three:

C [Richard Dearlove, Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

This and other excerpts have caused a furor on the American Left. Ralph Nader is calling for impeachment (again), and John Kerry has vowed to bring the matter to the Senate floor. Of course, the memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking. It is sad when hearsay thrice-removed raises this kind of ruckus, especially since a version had been reported three years ago. As smoking guns go, it is not high caliber.

[...]

Regime change had been U.S. policy since October 31, 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. It was not a state secret. On February 12, 2002, Colin Powell stated that "With respect to Iraq, it has long been, for several years now, a policy of the United States government that regime change would be in the best interests of the region, the best interests of the Iraqi people. And we are looking at a variety of options that would bring that about." The policy had bipartisan support; in June 2002 Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said, "There is broad support for a regime change in Iraq. The question is how do we do it and when do we do it." It was also an international objective. On April 6, 2002, during a summit in Crawford, Texas, Prime Minister Blair said that regime change in Iraq was the policy of Great Britain, and that failure to act against Saddam was “not an option.” Blair pledged to support military action against Iraq, should that become necessary.

[...]

 

[Bullypulpit]

Was the information in the Downing Street minute a surprise...? No. We had been told by former Administration officials that Dubbyuh had a chubby for Saddam from his very first days in office. Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke come immediately to mind, and they were mercilessly attacked by the Bush administration in hopes of discrediting them.

As for the "Iraq Liberation Act", it was to have provided monetary and material support for opponents of Saddam in Iraq to oust that particular monster. But little actually came of it. The Clinton administration preferred a policy of caontainment, but under pressure from a republican controlled Congress with sufficient votes to over-ride any veto of the Act, Clinton signed it. The Act helped lead us to where we are today in Iraq as the Buish administration relied heavily on the intelligence provide by Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress which was funded as a result of the Iraqi Liberation Act.

But let us go back to 2002. Starting in May of 2002, the US and Britain doubled the number of air-raids into Iraqs 'no-fly' zones and systematically targeted Iraqi air-defenses. The goal here was to attempt to goad Hussein into taking actions which could be used to justify an invasion. Also, allied forces were

<blockquote><a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html> “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.</a></blockquote>

In other words, Allied aircraft could only fire against Iraqi air defenses if they had not just been illuminated, but locked on, by a SAM battery.

These attacks culminated with a <a href=http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill>100 plane raid</a> which took out Iraq's western air defenses. This gave an open air corridor for Special Forces units to be inserted into Iraq. The goal was to destroy Iraq's ability to resist any military action. It was war...Nothing more...Nothing less. The only problem was that it occured in September of 2002, More than a month before Bush recieved any authority from Congress to invade Iraq. It was also nearly two months prior to the UN voted on the issue. And it was nearly six months before the invasion actually began.

Viewed in light of these actions, it is clear that the Bush administration was dertermined to pursue a war with Iraq. It is also clear that actions were being taken to advance this policy before Congress was ever notified. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush adminstatio was willing to take whatever steps were necessary to bring this policy to fruition. The Downing Street Minutes only serve to confirm what many others have told us.

<blockquote>There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. - <a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html>The Downing Minutes</a></blockquote>

"Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq." - George W. Bush, 10/1/02

"Hopefully, we can do this peacefully—don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don't—it's my last choice." - George W. Bush, 11/7/02

Having lied with these statements, how much else has he lied about?

 

[Annie]

Was the information in the Downing Street minute a surprise...? No. We had been told by former Administration officials that Dubbyuh had a chubby for Saddam from his very first days in office. Paul O'Neil and Richard Clarke come immediately to mind, and they were mercilessly attacked by the Bush administration in hopes of discrediting them.

As for the "Iraq Liberation Act", it was to have provided monetary and material support for opponents of Saddam in Iraq to oust that particular monster. But little actually came of it. The Clinton administration preferred a policy of caontainment, but under pressure from a republican controlled Congress with sufficient votes to over-ride any veto of the Act, Clinton signed it. The Act helped lead us to where we are today in Iraq as the Buish administration relied heavily on the intelligence provide by Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress which was funded as a result of the Iraqi Liberation Act.

But let us go back to 2002. Starting in May of 2002, the US and Britain doubled the number of air-raids into Iraqs 'no-fly' zones and systematically targeted Iraqi air-defenses. The goal here was to attempt to goad Hussein into taking actions which could be used to justify an invasion. Also, allied forces were

<blockquote><a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1632566,00.html> “entitled to use force in self-defence where such a use of force is a necessary and proportionate response to actual or imminent attack from Iraqi ground systems”.</a></blockquote>

In other words, Allied aircraft could only fire against Iraqi air defenses if they had not just been illuminated, but locked on, by a SAM battery.

These attacks culminated with a <a href=http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050613&s=scahill>100 plane raid</a> which took out Iraq's western air defenses. This gave an open air corridor for Special Forces units to be inserted into Iraq. The goal was to destroy Iraq's ability to resist any military action. It was war...Nothing more...Nothing less. The only problem was that it occured in September of 2002, More than a month before Bush recieved any authority from Congress to invade Iraq. It was also nearly two months prior to the UN voted on the issue. And it was nearly six months before the invasion actually began.

Viewed in light of these actions, it is clear that the Bush administration was dertermined to pursue a war with Iraq. It is also clear that actions were being taken to advance this policy before Congress was ever notified. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush adminstatio was willing to take whatever steps were necessary to bring this policy to fruition. The Downing Street Minutes only serve to confirm what many others have told us.

<blockquote>There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. - <a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html>The Downing Minutes</a></blockquote>

"Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq." - George W. Bush, 10/1/02

"Hopefully, we can do this peacefully—don't get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there's a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don't—it's my last choice." - George W. Bush, 11/7/02

Having lied with these statements, how much else has he lied about?

Bully, once again you have to go back to 1998 when Clinton made it our foreign policy for regime change in Iraq.

Bush was not lying 10/1/02, Saddam still had the opportunity of totally coming clean with the weapon's inspectors. Without his transparency, it was clear that he was going to go.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You simply can't admit that the invasion of Iraq was based upon the thinnest of evidence if not out right lies promulgated by the Bush administration...can you? It was a war of aggression in violation of US and international law, but then the US is a power unto itself and can act as it wishes...Right?

If Bush lived up to the Christian ideals he openly espouses, he might be a decent human being and POTUS...but he doesn't. He, and others in the Republican leadership wrap themselves in the mantle of Christianity for nothing more than political gain. They have clearly forgotten that they serve the country...Not their political party...Not their campaign contributors...The whole country. And yes, the ideology being pushed by this Administration is a failed ideology and a threat to the Constitution. But you fail to understand that threat and, worst of all, you are a willing dupe to those who are posing the threat.

The only joke I see here is you...A dupe, and a poor one at that.

Bully, don't you ever tire suckling on this mindless pap?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, once again you have to go back to 1998 when Clinton made it our foreign policy for regime change in Iraq.

It's all Clinton's fault...When are you going to get over Goat-boy? A republican controlled Congress made it US foreign policy in 1998. Clinton signed it, despite his preferred policy of containment. Also, an open letter to Clinton signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others urging a more aggressive policy towards Iraq. Rummy, Wolfie and Perle are the architects of the Bush administrations policy, which led us to a baseless war in Iraq.

Bush was not lying 10/1/02, Saddam still had the opportunity of totally coming clean with the weapon's inspectors. Without his transparency, it was clear that he was going to go.

Really...? When he'd already ordered air-raids to weaken Iraq's defenses and attempt to provoke Hussein into action which would give the US and Britain grounds to invade? Where are the WMD's that Saddam was supposed to have been stockpiling? Where are the weapons delivery systems that were supposed to deliver WMD's into the heart of Europe within 45 minutes? Where are the RPV's capable of delivering WMD's to America's shores? Why were the greater threats posed by North Korea and Iran ignored? If Bush and members of his administration did not lie about the rationale for war with Iraq, just what did they do?

By taking us to war on a tissue of prevarications, misdirection and misinformation, the credibility of the Bush administration, and by extension the US, is in tatters. The information is available and is a matter of public record. A resolution of inquiry is needed to bring it together and, if grounds are found, to impeach the President and members of his administration for high crimes and misdemeanors for their actions in misleading America into an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, don't you ever tire suckling on this mindless pap?

Just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

[Annie]

It's all Clinton's fault...When are you going to get over Goat-boy? A republican controlled Congress made it US foreign policy in 1998. Clinton signed it, despite his preferred policy of containment. Also, an open letter to Clinton signed by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others urging a more aggressive policy towards Iraq. Rummy, Wolfie and Perle are the architects of the Bush administrations policy, which led us to a baseless war in Iraq.



Really...? When he'd already ordered air-raids to weaken Iraq's defenses and attempt to provoke Hussein into action which would give the US and Britain grounds to invade? Where are the WMD's that Saddam was supposed to have been stockpiling? Where are the weapons delivery systems that were supposed to deliver WMD's into the heart of Europe within 45 minutes? Where are the RPV's capable of delivering WMD's to America's shores? Why were the greater threats posed by North Korea and Iran ignored? If Bush and members of his administration did not lie about the rationale for war with Iraq, just what did they do?

By taking us to war on a tissue of prevarications, misdirection and misinformation, the credibility of the Bush administration, and by extension the US, is in tatters. The information is available and is a matter of public record. A resolution of inquiry is needed to bring it together and, if grounds are found, to impeach the President and members of his administration for high crimes and misdemeanors for their actions in misleading America into an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq.

Actually, this should have been done before 9/11. Iraq had been shooting at US and UK jets for years. The weapons inspectors had been thrown out years earlier.

As for the justifications-too many times Bully, too many times. :funnyface

 

[Bullypulpit]

And the bad news just keeps coming. In a July, 2002 memo, it was revealed that Tony Blair agreed to back militiary action against Saddam Hussein in April of 2002, this during his visit to Crawford, Texas. After that, it was just a matter of finding a way to justify such action. Thus we have the statement from the Downing Street Minutes that:

<blockquote>"...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."</blockquote>

Also, the document made an accurte prediction about any war with Iraq.

<blockquote><a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758_3,00.html>A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point.</a></blockquote>

Not only has the attempt at nation building been costly in terms of money, it has also been costly in terms of human life. Over 1700 US dead at this point, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties.

It also seems that rather than using the UN to prevent war with Iraq, as the Bush administration has claimed, they were intent on using the UN to justify the invasion of Iraq. The more one looks at the Administrations continued refusal to address the issued raised in these documents...The determination to find a justification for war with Iraq from the inception of the Bush Administration in 2000...The attempts to link Saddam with 9/11...The purported stockpiles of WMD's that were never found...

The Bush Administration has much to answer for in these matters. If they've nothing to fear, why aren't they coming clean? Are they hoping that, like so many other issues they find troubling, this one will simply go away if they ignore long enough?

 

[GotZoom]

I think Bully is trying the "Taming Of The Shrew" approach.

If he keeps saying it, someone will eventually believe him.

You think someone, all of the sudden, will say..."Oh...Bully has been right all along...I've been an idiot...."

You say Bush Bush Bush...then someone points our it started with Clinton. Then you say, "Ohhhhh it was Clinton? Well, it's because of 'a republican controlled Congress' who made it US foreign policy in 1998. Clinton signed it, despite his preferred policy of containment.

Hello.....his preferred policy of containment obviously wasn't working.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

You are saying the same thing over and over again.....but are you really expecting different results?

 

[Bullypulpit]

I think Bully is trying the "Taming Of The Shrew" approach.

If he keeps saying it, someone will eventually believe him.

You think someone, all of the sudden, will say..."Oh...Bully has been right all along...I've been an idiot...."

You say Bush Bush Bush...then someone points our it started with Clinton. Then you say, "Ohhhhh it was Clinton? Well, it's because of 'a republican controlled Congress' who made it US foreign policy in 1998. Clinton signed it, despite his preferred policy of containment.

Hello.....his preferred policy of containment obviously wasn't working.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

You are saying the same thing over and over again.....but are you really expecting different results?

No...That's the approach the Bush administration takes towards unpleasant facts. Among those facts are that right-wing Republicans were the driving force behind the Iraqi Liberation act. The Act never provided for supplying US troops to support the ouster of Saddam...Material and money, yes...Troops, no.

Now, let me give you a little time-line:

<blockquote>February 2001 - Only one month after the first Bush-Cheney inauguration, the State Department's Pam Quanrud organizes a secret confab in California to make plans for the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam. US oil industry advisor Falah Aljibury and others are asked to interview would-be replacements for a new US-installed dictator.

On BBC Television's Newsnight, Aljibury himself explained,

"It is an invasion, but it will act like a coup. The original plan was to liberate Iraq from the Saddamists and from the regime."

March 2001 - Vice-President Dick Cheney meets with oil company executives and reviews oil field maps of Iraq. Cheney refuses to release the names of those attending or their purpose. Harper's has since learned their plan and purpose -- see below.

October/November 2001 - An easy military victory in Afghanistan emboldens then-Dep. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to convince the Administration to junk the State Department "coup" plan in favor of an invasion and occupation that could remake the economy of Iraq. An elaborate plan, ultimately summarized in a 101-page document, scopes out the "sale of all state enterprises" -- that is, most of the nation's assets, "… especially in the oil and supporting industries."

2002 - Grover Norquist and other corporate lobbyists meet secretly with Defense, State and Treasury officials to ensure the invasion plans for Iraq include plans for protecting "property rights." The result was a pre-invasion scheme to sell off Iraq's oil fields, banks, electric systems, and even change the country's copyright laws to the benefit of the lobbyists' clients. Occupation chief Paul Bremer would later order these giveaways into Iraq law.

Fall 2002 - Philip Carroll, former CEO of Shell Oil USA, is brought in by the Pentagon to plan the management of Iraq's oil fields. He works directly with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. "There were plans," says Carroll, "maybe even too many plans" -- but none disclosed to the public nor even the US Congress.


January 2003 - Robert Ebel, former CIA oil analyst, is sent, BBC learns, to London to meet with Fadhil Chalabi to plan terms for taking over Iraq's oil.

March 2003 - What White House spokesman Ari Fleisher calls "Operations Iraqi Liberation" (OIL) begins. (Invasion is re-christened "OIF" -- Operation Iraqi Freedom.)

March 2003 - Defense Department is told in confidence by US Energy Information Administrator Guy Caruso that Iraq's fields are incapable of a massive increase in output. Despite this intelligence, Dep. Secretary Wolfowitz testifies to Congress that invasion will be a free ride. He swears, "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. …We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon," a deliberate fabrication promoted by the Administration, an insider told BBC, as "part of the sales pitch" for war.

May 2003 - General Jay Garner, appointed by Bush as viceroy over Iraq, is fired by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The general revealed in an interview for BBC that he resisted White House plans to sell off Iraq's oil and national assets.

"That's just one fight you don't want to take on," Garner told me. But apparently, the White House wanted that fight.

The general also disclosed that these invade-and-grab plans were developed long before the US asserted that Saddam still held WDM:

"All I can tell you is the plans were pretty elaborate; they didn't start them in 2002, they were started in 2001."


November/December 2003 - Secrecy and misinformation continues even after the invasion. The oil industry objects to the State Department plans for Iraq's oil fields and drafts for the Administration a 323-page plan, "Options for [the] Iraqi Oil Industry." Per the industry plan, the US forces Iraq to create an OPEC-friendly state oil company that supports the OPEC cartel's extortionate price for petroleum. - <a href=http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=437&row=0>Greg Palast</a></blockquote>

The Bush adminstration lied its way into a war. If you are unwilling to accept this, you are not stupid...just complicit in the Administration's policies and what they have wrought.