Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq

[conjur]

Well, "America and the world are safer" now.

 

[conjur]

Blair planned Iraq war from start
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html

INSIDE Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and advisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public was told war was inevitable.

The discussion that morning was highly confidential. As minutes of the proceedings, headed ?Secret and strictly personal ? UK eyes only?, state: ?This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.?

[...]

For the secret documents ? seen by The Sunday Times ? reveal that on that Tuesday in 2002:


Blair was right from the outset committed to supporting US plans for ?regime change? in Iraq.

War was already ?seen as inevitable?.

The attorney-general was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.
Straw even said the case for war was ?thin?. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

?If the political context were right,? said Blair, ?people would support regime change.? Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason.

Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war
PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

The secret Downing Street memo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

C 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.

[...]

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Propagandist's March 6, 2003 Press Conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

Q Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course. We will give people a chance to leave. And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going, and we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in harm's way. And our intention -- we have no quarrel with anybody other than Saddam and his group of killers who have destroyed a society. And we will do everything we can, as I mentioned -- and I mean this -- to protect innocent life.

I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country."

Lying...flat-out lying.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: conjur
Blair planned Iraq war from start
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html

INSIDE Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and advisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public was told war was inevitable.

The discussion that morning was highly confidential. As minutes of the proceedings, headed ?Secret and strictly personal ? UK eyes only?, state: ?This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.?

[...]

For the secret documents ? seen by The Sunday Times ? reveal that on that Tuesday in 2002:


Blair was right from the outset committed to supporting US plans for ?regime change? in Iraq.

War was already ?seen as inevitable?.

The attorney-general was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.
Straw even said the case for war was ?thin?. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

?If the political context were right,? said Blair, ?people would support regime change.? Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason.

Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war
PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

The secret Downing Street memo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

C 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.

[...]

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Propagandist's March 6, 2003 Press Conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

Q Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course. We will give people a chance to leave. And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going, and we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in harm's way. And our intention -- we have no quarrel with anybody other than Saddam and his group of killers who have destroyed a society. And we will do everything we can, as I mentioned -- and I mean this -- to protect innocent life.

I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country."

Lying...flat-out lying.

Disgusting...Kinda OT but did anybody here watch CSPAN the other day where they had the British program "Question Time" on with Tony Blair? The audience drilled Tony Blair and he had to answer to them. It was a real debate if you will, and I found myself wishing we'd have the same. I'd like to see Bush answer random, hard-nosed questions from the American people.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: mribnik1

Originally posted by: conjur
Blair planned Iraq war from start
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html

INSIDE Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and advisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public was told war was inevitable.

The discussion that morning was highly confidential. As minutes of the proceedings, headed ?Secret and strictly personal ? UK eyes only?, state: ?This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.?

[...]

For the secret documents ? seen by The Sunday Times ? reveal that on that Tuesday in 2002:


Blair was right from the outset committed to supporting US plans for ?regime change? in Iraq.

War was already ?seen as inevitable?.

The attorney-general was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.
Straw even said the case for war was ?thin?. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

?If the political context were right,? said Blair, ?people would support regime change.? Straightforward regime change, though, was illegal. They needed another reason.

Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war
PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

The secret Downing Street memo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

C 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.

[...]

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

Propagandist's March 6, 2003 Press Conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

Q Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground or the journalists? Will you be able to do that, and still mount an effective attack on Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course. We will give people a chance to leave. And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going, and we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in harm's way. And our intention -- we have no quarrel with anybody other than Saddam and his group of killers who have destroyed a society. And we will do everything we can, as I mentioned -- and I mean this -- to protect innocent life.

I've not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully. Hopefully, that as a result of the pressure that we have placed -- and others have placed -- that Saddam will disarm and/or leave the country."

Lying...flat-out lying.

Disgusting...Kinda OT but did anybody here watch CSPAN the other day where they had the British program "Question Time" on with Tony Blair? The audience drilled Tony Blair and he had to answer to them. It was a real debate if you will, and I found myself wishing we'd have the same. I'd like to see Bush answer random, hard-nosed questions from the American people.

Edit: Really sad actually...When they're demanding real answers from their Prime Minister, we have gay prostitutes lobbing softball questions at our president. Whoops, clicked reply instead of edit. Sorry.

 

[conjur]

Rep. calls for deeper inquiry into secret Iraq attack plan
http://rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) is circulating a letter calling for a further inquiry into a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

Conyers says he is seeking an inquiry.

"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride," he remarks. "To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it."

The letter follows.

###

May ___, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "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."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Congressman John Conyers

This should be affecting more than Blair's chances at re-election. This should be considerable basis for discussion in our own Congress for starting the impeachment hearings.

 

[BBond]

Add to all of that, this.

BTW, I hate to point this out again because I'm really not very happy about being right in this instance. But everything we told Bush would happen if he took America to war based on his lies has happened and continues to happen and will do so as long as there is an occupation in Iraq.

Afghanistan was the traget. Bush left that job unfinished and ran off for without justification to Iraq. Now, thanks to Bush's arrogance and stupidity, we are less prepared for future conflicts agaist genuine enemies.

Maybe that's why they're talkiing about using nukes pre-emptively now too.

Bush made the military stronger??? The Pentagon doesn't think so. And that means Bush has lied to us once again (see bolded passage).

What a surprise.

Pentagon Says Iraq Effort Limits Ability to Fight Other Conflicts

By THOM SHANKER

Published: May 3, 2005

WASHINGTON, May 2 - The concentration of American troops and weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan limits the Pentagon's ability to deal with other potential armed conflicts, the military's highest ranking officer reported to Congress on Monday.

The officer, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed Congress in a classified report that major combat operations elsewhere in the world, should they be necessary, would probably be more protracted and produce higher American and foreign civilian casualties because of the commitment of Pentagon resources in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A half dozen Pentagon civilian and military officials were discussing the outlines of the report on Monday as it was being officially delivered to Congress; one government official provided a copy to The New York Times. The officials who discussed the assessment demanded anonymity because it is a classified document.

General Myers cited reduced stockpiles of precision weapons, which were depleted during the invasion of Iraq, and the stress on reserve units, which fulfill the bulk of combat support duties in Iraq, as among the factors that would limit the Pentagon's ability to prevail as quickly as war planners once predicted in other potential conflicts.

The report this year acknowledges that the nation's armed forces are operating under a higher level of risk than cited in the report last year, said Pentagon and military officials who have read both documents.

Despite the limitations, General Myers was unwavering in his assessment that American forces would win any major combat operation. The armed forces, he concluded, are "fully capable" of meeting all Washington's military objectives.

The general's report appears to provide a slightly different assessment than President Bush offered at a news conference last week when he said the number of American troops in Iraq would not limit Washington military options elsewhere.

Mr. Bush said he had asked General Myers, "Do you feel that we've limited our capacity to deal with other problems because of our troop levels in Iraq?"

"And the answer is no, he didn't feel a bit limited," Mr. Bush said. "It feels like we got plenty of capacity."

Late Monday, a Pentagon official dismissed any serious contradiction between the president and the general. "The two comments are consistent in that no one in the military feels at all limited in the ability to respond to any contingency," the official said. "What the risk assessment discusses is the nature of the response."

Another Pentagon official emphasized that the risk assessment should be understood as a rating of the military's ability to successfully perform its mission based on a set of standards set by the Joint Staff, which is different from the broad statement of military capability given by the president at his news conference.

In the report, General Myers wrote, the military faces "moderate" risk in its mission to protect the United States, and he assessed the risk for preventing conflict - including surprise attack - as "moderate, but trending toward significant."

Though the general wrote that the military forces "will succeed in any" major combat operation, he added that "they may be unable to meet expectations for speed or precision as detailed in our current plans."

The annual "Chairman's Risk Assessment," which is required by Congress, warned that additional major combat operations "may result in significantly extended campaign timelines, and achieving campaign objectives may result in higher casualties and collateral damage."

The classified assessment is a formal acknowledgment by General Myers, who serves as the senior military adviser to both President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, of a series of strains: those placed on military personnel by large and lengthy overseas deployments; those placed on weapons and vehicles by wear and tear; and those placed on war planners trying to counter potential adversaries even though forces previously committed to such places as South Korea are now engaged elsewhere.

Even so, the assessment notes steps already under way to mitigate this risk, and concludes that at the broadest global and strategic levels, the risk "is significant, but trending lower."

The half-dozen senior officials who discussed the chairman's assessment seemed motivated at least in part by concerns that its findings might be misinterpreted by adversaries as an admission of vulnerability, and be seen as an invitation to adventurism that could lead to war.

In case of armed conflict, "There is no doubt what the outcome would be," said one senior official. "But it may not be as pretty," said another.

The assessment acknowledges the important role played by the demonstration of American military resolve in deterring adversaries.

"Our ability to manage the perceptions of our adversaries is critical," General Myers wrote. "Our nation's steadfast resolve has been demonstrated by our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and selected operations" in the campaign against terrorism. "This in itself is a strong deterrent and should serve to restrain" the actions of adversaries, he wrote.

General Myers noted that the American military does not face "extreme risk," the highest level, in any of the categories analyzed in the report. Among the steps he listed as being in progress were substantial improvements in coordinating military efforts with civil authorities, who are "playing a critical role in disrupting potential terrorist attacks against the United States," he wrote.

Overseas, terrorist sanctuaries have been reduced and the Navy and Air Force have shown they can quickly deploy weapons and personnel to deter adversaries. One example cited by General Myers was the decision to move heavy bombers from bases in the United States to airfields in the Pacific to deter potential hostile action by North Korea when ground forces in the region - those usually assigned to a contingency on the Korean peninsula - began moving toward Iraq in advance of the war there.

At the same time, the military has learned how to better "maintain and sustain a campaign level of effort" through the mission in Iraq, and the Army in particular is reorganizing its forces to create more units that can be deployed. But even though adjustments to the organization of the active and reserve components, and the Army's overall restructuring, will eventually correct shortfalls in deployable troop strength, "this will take several more years to complete," the assessment states. At present, there are about 138,000 American troops in Iraq, and about 17,000 in Afghanistan.

In an upbeat final paragraph, General Myers told Congress that the armed forces "remain the most professional, best trained, and best equipped military in the world.

"Our ability to project power, anywhere in the world, remains second to none," he added. "The dedication, commitment, and sacrifice of the men and women of our Armed Forces ensure success in every challenge."

 

[conjur]

"commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance" = full-scale invasion and occupation?


I don't think so.



I think something like this is what we should be considering:

Impeachment Time: "Facts Were Fixed."

A BUZZFLASH GUEST NEWS ANALYSIS
by Greg Palast
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/05/ana05013.html

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has, "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WDM. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" Vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snotty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections today, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a causus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press ...nada, bubkiss, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it not worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.

 

[BBond]

Read the Ellsberg quote again, people. It's truer today than it ever was.

"What's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do."

WTFU America.

 

[impeachbush]

Do you have links to the actual memos? If so, its getting emailed to my family and everyone I know. I don't care if Cheney takes Bush's place, its ACCOUNTABILITY that I'm concerned about. Accountability seems to have disappeared after 911...

 

[BBond]

The London Times' site is currently down.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: impeachbush
Do you have links to the actual memos? If so, its getting emailed to my family and everyone I know. I don't care if Cheney takes Bush's place, its ACCOUNTABILITY that I'm concerned about. Accountability seems to have disappeared after 911...

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

 

[BBond]

The Globe and Mail provides some excerpts here.

 

[conjur]

PNAC issues some apologist revisionism:

Iraq: Setting the Record Straight
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf

DID THE ADMINISTRATION CLAIM the Iraqi threat was imminent, in the sense
Iraq possessed weapons that were about to be used against the United States? That is
big charge leveled by the Bush administration's critics these days. It is rather surprising,
given the certainty with which this charge is thrown around, how little the critics have
the way of quotations from administration officials to back it up. Saying that action
urgent is not the same thing as saying the threat is imminent. In fact, the president
the threat was not imminent, and that we had to act (urgently) before the threat became
imminent. This was well understood. As Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said
October 10, 2002, explaining his support for the legislation authorizing the president
go to war, "The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real,
growing and it cannot be ignored."

One reason critics have been insisting that the administration claimed the threat from
was imminent, we believe, is that it is fairly easy to prove that the danger to the United
States was not imminent. But the central thesis of the antiwar argument as it
advanced before the war asserted that the threat from Iraq would not have been imminent
even if Saddam had possessed every conceivable weapon in his arsenal. Remember,
vast majority of arguments against the war assumed that he did have these weapons.
those weapons, it was argued, did not pose an imminent threat to the nation because
Saddam, like the Soviet Union, could be deterred. Indeed, the fact that he had
weapons, some argued, was all the more reason why the United States should not go
war. After all, it was argued, the likeliest scenario for Saddam's actually using
weapons he had was in the event of an American invasion. The current debate
imminence" is an ex post facto attempt to relitigate the old argument over the war.
non-discovery of weapons stockpiles has not changed the contours of that debate.

Wow. Completely and utterly delusional.

I guess they haven't seen these:
Bush Debates Himself
http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/dailyapril2003/4-28-03-bushvbush-sm.mov

Catching Cheney in a lie
http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/06-21-04-cheney-fib-all.mov

Rumsfeld dumbfounded and contradicting himself
http://www.lisarein.com/videos/tvclips/dailyoct2003/10-23-03-daily-rumsfeld.mov

And how about Condi Rice looking like an idiot? (With bonus footage of Bush)
http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/jul...elections/07-13-04-daily-election1.mov


Or read this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml

War opponents and some Congressional Democrats have pointed to a statement Powell made on Feb. 24, 2001, while meeting at Cairo's Ittihadiya Palace with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa.

Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Video of Rice and Powell:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm



BTW, here's a lovely quote from Richard Perle:
http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d1220jpi.htm

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

 

[conjur]

^^^

As a reminder to some of the n00bs.

 

[Todd33]

It's really embarrasing that our leaders can lie so bold faced and still get re-elected. What do you have to do in this country to get held accountable, get a BJ?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Before, it was complete denial on the part of The Propagandist's supporters concerning whether he lied or not. Now that it's coming to the point that denial is not possible any longer, his supporters are changing their tune a little. (I'm referring to TLC's statement in my signature)

Just to make things a little more clear. I've changed my sig since I posted the above, but at the time TastesLikeChicken had recently stated that he didn't give a sh!t if our president lied to us...and others have stated this also. It's sad that there are those who shrug their shoulders when told that our elected president lied to us.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Gaard
Before, it was complete denial on the part of The Propagandist's supporters concerning whether he lied or not. Now that it's coming to the point that denial is not possible any longer, his supporters are changing their tune a little. (I'm referring to TLC's statement in my signature)

Just to make things a little more clear. I've changed my sig since I posted the above, but at the time TastesLikeChicken had recently stated that he didn't give a sh!t if our president lied to us...and others have stated this also. It's sad that there are those who shrug their shoulders when told that our elected president lied to us.

They cared (and I did, too) when it was Clinton that was doing the lying.