Today on Blogcritics
Home » LIES! And more damn lies.

LIES! And more damn lies.

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people.

The key line in the leaked memo, (as described by Getler from the Sunday Times Post), is the assessment by British intelligence, after a visit to Washington, that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” That kind of assertion has been made by critics and commentators, but it has not been included in official post-invasion assessments here about how the country went to war under what turned out to be false premises about weapons of mass destruction and other matters.

Why has this information not been discussed? My guess is that the people in power are just sitting on this information until after the midterm elections to see if democrats can get control and then the fireworks will begin.

The same critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation into the misuse of the intelligence and as long as they are in the minority they never will.

This isn’t the last you’ll hear of this is my guess…

Read more >
The Memo >
Letter to Bush >
Why we’re not talking about this >

About Yensid

  • Dave Nalle

    Patriot, I was not particularly involved in this discussion until you decided to start referencing racist websites to support your position. That’s the only thing that’s kept me here and the only thing I’m interested in discussing. I’m not about to waste a minute on your silly conspiracy theories. I can get all the crazy conspiracy theories I want on any number of extreme left websites.

    My ‘obsession’ is with getting you to be honest about your beliefs, which you absolutely refuse to do. I’m not going to discuss what you want to discuss and give it legitimacy when you aren’t willing to establish basic credibility by answering my perfectly reasonable question.

    Your anti-semitic conspiracy theories aren’t nearly as interesting as your unwillingness to make a simple statement acknowledging the existence of the Holocaust. Come on, you can do it – repeat after me: “Hitler ordered the death of —- (insert number here) innocent Jews.”

    Until you can make a statement on that subject I can’t imagine anyone taking your comments seriously.


  • Jesus Christ

    Let us bring some civility back to the forum my children.

    Now Dave,
    Yes- Bush is a monkey faced douche-bag.
    And Patriot,
    Yes- The Jews are greasy schemers.

    Now we must move forward.
    Bless you all.

  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle believes that the neo-cons had nothing to do with AIPAC and the decision to go to war in Iraq for Israel.

    Mr Nalle says that bringing it up – makes me part of an “anti-semitic conspiracy”.

    No information showing that linkage can sway Mr Nalle. So – the question is – why does Mr Nalle show no interest? There is no amount of relevant detail that piques his interest…

    Truly Amazing!

    In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: “By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America.”

    Is George Bush also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor, echoed the President’s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”

    Is Condoleeza Rice also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    US Senator Ernest Hollings acknowledged that the US invaded Iraq “to secure Israel,” and “everybody” knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author.

    Is Senator Ernest Hollings also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said in an interview:

    “Those who favor this attack by the US against Iraq now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel.”

    Is Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort that can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right…”

    The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.

    Was then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations
    JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful government posts, where… they’ve managed to weave a number of issues — with support for the Israeli right at its core… On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it… For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”

    Is Jason Vest, and those he identifies here, also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, has also looked into the “neo-conservative” role in fomenting war.

    “My own answer,” he wrote, “is that the lie that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001…

    “What has been happening inside the Bush administration is no less a nest of treason than the Soviet spy rings of the New Deal era, and if political reality doesn’t demand its exposure, simple loyalty to the United States does.”

    Is Samuel Francis also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: “Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.”

    Is the Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli prime minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that “the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime.” Moreover, added Novak, “that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war.”

    Is Robert Novak also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel (maybe intentionally?) and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons of mass destruction existed.”

    Is Brigadier General Shlomo Bron also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?

    For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: “The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ‘friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.”

    Is Norman Podhoretz also “part of the anti-semitic conspiracy”?


  • Dave Nalle

    Wow you took a long time to not answer my question, Patriot. I give up.

    My remaining suggestion is that you put all of your paranoia together into a substantial article and post that, rather than covering all of this on someone else’s thread.


  • Patriot

    Mr Nalle – you are slow.

    What ever made you think I would play your little game?

    Why on earth should I play your little game – when the issue is about something totally unrelated?

    You can continue to call anything you want “paranoia” — but you calling it doesn’t make it paranoia.

    Perhaps you could have found a better excuse to avoid the real issue of why we invaded Iraq.

  • Dave Nalle

    You really need to find someone to discuss this with who’s interested. As I said, the best way to do that is to take all your thoughts and put them together into a coherent article laying out exactly why the ZOG got us into the war.


  • Patriot

    It is clear that the subject Mr Nalle has consistently brought forth recently is “how many Jews died in WWII”.

    It is also clear this is not the subject that this post is all about.

    It is perfectly clear that the subject is about a leaked British memo, and other documents, which make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people.

    Mr Nalle has made it clear that he wants to run the show and wants to “test” those who post here to see if they meet his qualifications.

    Mr Nalle – is like a child throwing a tantrum.

    Mr Nalle — GROW UP!!!

  • MDE

    Ambivalent as I am about bringing this thread up again, today’s news fuels Patriot’s argument. Seems that AIPAC is implicated in a case of ‘spying’. See story.


  • Dave Nalle

    Note that I’ve never said AIPAC is a desirable organization. There are lots of good reasons to oppose their activities. But thinking that they are part of a shadow government conspiracy and hating them solely out of irrational anti-semitism is a problem, and one which Patriot seems to be afflicted with.


  • Nancy

    A propos of marginal comments, why is it considered to be antiSemitism to criticize Israel, Israeli policies, etc.? I’m not asking in reference to the above exchanges, I’m just asking in general. It seems to me that any time anyone says anything even mildly critical of anything even vaguely Jewish (or Black, or Hispanic, or Gay/Lesbian, or Conservative, or Liberal) that criticism is automatically construed as being rooted in anti-whateverism. Isn’t it possible to disagree with a group and criticize, without automatically being anti-them? Just asking; maybe I don’t understand the definition of ‘criticism’ correctly, altho I swear I thought I could speak/understand basic English.

  • Dave Nalle

    It’s not considered anti-semitic to criticize Israel. It IS considered anti-semitic to criticize Israel solely because it’s full of nasty icky Jews.

    In the case of Patriot, his zeal to stamp out Israel originates in a zeal to stamp out Jews as a race, so he’s immediately suspect on the topic. He accidentally tipped his hand early in this discussion by drawing all his data solely from holocaust denial and neo-nazi web sources.


  • Nancy

    Ah. I’ve noticed that frequently in various situations – on TV, radio, the net, the papers, etc. – even mild criticism of various groups brings down ringing denunciation of the critics as being ‘anti-’ this or that, even when (IMO) the criticisms seemed justified by behavior, speech, policies, etc. I do think some groups are hyper-sensitive and bristle at anyone and anything that doesn’t accord w/them, but it also has the effect of making everyone hyper-afraid to say anything adverse, even when it seems justified.

  • Micheline

    Would anyone know the name of Hitler’s Ship tjat was anchored on the Miami River in the early 70′s.It was at a Marina near the Miami River.