Where the hell is that awesome, unamerican juggernaut, "The Liberal Media" when ya need 'em?
After this "smoking gun" British MEMO surfaced last week, one can only wonder why the alleged "LIBERAL MEDIA" (which apparently dominates America even moreso than the International Jewish Conspirarcy!) has hardly made a sound about this explicit evidence against our lying, manipulative weasel of a President — George Bush.
Add to this memo — evidence from Colin Powell, Bob Woodward, PAUL O'NEILL, et al. regarding the Bush administration's obsession with war in Iraq very early on in their reign — and it seems like Bush & Company have committed AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE against the people of America: lying in order to start an unnecessary war in order to redeem the BLUNDER of his daddy — and line the pockets of his oil industry friends. (That's worse than getting a Hummer in the Oval Office, right?)
What have we lost for George Bush's trumped-up ego trip?
Over $200 billion in taxpayer money; over 1600 American lives.
So far today.
...But the day is young.
Printed below, excerpts from the infamous "Downing Street Memo" — which shows explicit evidence that Bush and Co. lied to the American people, had no intentions of letting "diplomacy" work in Iraq, and had even less patience with U.N. missions and weapons inspectors.
NOTE THE DATE: JULY 2002, ie. almost EIGHT MONTHS before the FAKE WAR began.
(Can't wait to hear the Bush apologists spin this one.)
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
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.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Matt
Where is there any lie about Iraq? The official policy of the US since 1998...hmmm, who was president then...was to overthrow Saddam. The memo does not say that the intelligence was made up...in fact, why did John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Carl Levin, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc., say that Saddam had WMDs and could not be allowed to have them if it was Bush making it up? Saddam said he had WMDs...he threatened to use them up to the end, and he had used them against the Kurds. So, where is there a lie?
2 - Dave Nalle
OMG, Shark actually wrote about the 'smoking gun' memo - admittedly a week late.
I started to write an article about it, but couldn't figure out enough ways to say "what the hell, there's no smoking gun here'.
The reason this memo hasn't gotten more coverage is that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know, and reveals no dark and terrible secrets at all.
Dave
3 - Shark
What part of "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy..." do you not understand?
4 - Dave Nalle
Once again, you miss the point, Shark. What they did with the intelligence is irrelevant. It's the objective that matters.
Dave
5 - Shark
Coupla points:
1) Re; Matt's "Overthrow Saddam..."
Actually, the Clinton goal was "regime change" -- which is not necessarily "WAR" -- especially under fake, trumped-up conditions such as the Bush marketing team put together.
2) Bush speechwriter David Frum recounts that, in December 2001, he was told to come up with a rationale for war with Iraq for inclusion in Bush's January State of the Union.
3) The whole UN inspectors thing was a ruse to convince the American people Bush was a fair man with some amount of patience. Which he didn't.
4) Next time we want people of authority to assemble "facts" around the policy -- we'll call in the *CREATIONISTS.
*oops, new GOP euphemism is "Intelligent Design" -- sorry, I got the memo late!
6 - Nancy
I'm w/Shark: where the hell are these bozos who purportedly are infiltrating all of mediadom? Oh - they're off covering the MEDIA! Themselves covering themselves! The media make Narcissus look like someone w/a hatred of himself. I am also at a loss to understand the continuing willful denial on the part of far too many people to the documented high crimes and not-so-misdemeanors of our Fearless Leader & his merrie men (& women). It's in black & white; it's on tape; it's in official releases; what the hell more do these half-wits need before they take their heads out of the sand? Ah, well: there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see, hey Shark? Because if they admit the problems, they might have to admit they've been following a clay god? Or worse, bought into a big lie and become accomplices, like the Germans w/Hitler? And no, I won't apologize for comparing W & Dolfie. If the shoe fits....
7 - Neil C. Reinhardt
It is really sad the members of the Loony Left and far too many others, are so stupid they do not even have a "F"ing clue what a lie is.
(Before some clod thinks I am a neo-con, I'm a 70 yr old Atheist Activest.)
Well, oh clueless ones, it is NOT a lie IF you believe what you are saying is the truth.
The facts are that nearly EVERY leading Democrat stated Saddass had WND. And Bush BELIEVED, as did MOST OF THE WORLD, he had them.
So I am sick and tired of IDIOTS saying he lied about them.
And nearly EVERY leading Democrat also said we should assure Saddam was removed from power.
Also, those of us who have actually have a clue know, there were other reasons (and the admin. had presented them) for taking Saddass out besides WND.
(And the majority of the people of Iraq consider
Saddam TO BE A WND all by himself.)
As anyone with a semi-
working brain and even a modicum of world knowledge KNOWS, our actions in removing Saddam from power and our freeing the Iraqi was FULLY JUSTIFIED.
And anyone who disagrees is either just ignorant of sufficent OR they are too STUPID to comprehend the facts!
8 - Mark Saleski
he lied about them.
ahem.
9 - BillB
Mark
That is way too funny!
10 - BillB
>Well, oh clueless ones, it is NOT a lie IF you believe what you are saying is the truth.<
OK. How about pathologically delusional. Are you OK with that?
>The facts are that nearly EVERY leading Democrat stated Saddass had WND. And Bush BELIEVED, as did MOST OF THE WORLD, he had them.<
We trusted the republicans and that crack intelligence gathering network. Our bad.
>And nearly EVERY leading Democrat also said we should assure Saddam was removed from power.<
Didn't you kinda already cover that on? Anyway, once again we trusted you. Our bad.
>Also, those of us who have actually have a clue know, there were other reasons (and the admin. had presented them) for taking Saddass out besides WND.<
What might those have been? You wouldn't be talking about the 9/11/Iraq connection now would you? Someone who throws the term "cluesless" around so cavaliery couldn't possibly be so, er, well, clueless.
>(And the majority of the people of Iraq consider
Saddam TO BE A WND all by himself.)<
What the people of Iraq thought of Saddam was definitely high on my list of reasons to send 1600 plus Americans to their deaths. Glad to see you agree.
>As anyone with a semi-
working brain and even a modicum of world knowledge KNOWS, our actions in removing Saddam from power and our freeing the Iraqi was FULLY JUSTIFIED.<
I'm pretty sure I don't use all that much of my brain. What percentage qualifies as "semi"?
Oh, and >freeing the Iraqi<. Was that one of the justifications? Oh, wait a minute, that was only AFTER the other two tanked.
>And anyone who disagrees is either just ignorant of sufficent OR they are too STUPID to comprehend the facts!<
Maybe I just don't know enough to know that I don't know anything. Just a thought - I think.
11 - clueless
I don’t know but I am sure
The neo-cons are not too pure
But they all said that they were right
But we can see they’re not too bright
How many times can they be wrong
And make this war go on too long
When will we all become awake
And see that it’s all a big mistake
12 - RealCon
1. The neo-cons (New American Century Group) plan a war against Iraq in 1995.
2. When Clinton will have none of it -- they stay on the sidelines until Cheney and Rumsfeld get into the White House.
3. The attack on 9/11 gives them a big break -- now they can tie Saddam to “terrorism”.
4. The big lie is leaked to get the news media to spread it. And the media is a willing accomplice.
5. The neo-cons show their cunning and deviousness. They promote the lie that Saddam has WMD’s just before the 2002 elections -- thereby making an election issue out of it. The poor Dems are made to declare their positions and don’t dare to look “unpatriotic”. They approve a resolution giving George the power to wage war - whenever and wherever -- The Dems are trapped - Remember -- “ You are either with us or against us.”
6. The half-awake public is duped into thinking that Saddam probably has WMD -- and is about to attack us (where and how is never even hypothesized) -- Some can see through the flimsy slide show that Colin Powell gives at the UN. (Trucks “moving the WMD” are shown - nobody asks the obvious question -- if we know these trucks are carrying WMD -- why don’t we take them out - now! -- like immediately! -- or at least follow them to see where they go!)
7. To anyone with half a brain -- it’s obvious that the reasons for war are phoney -- but the news media gives short shrift to any opposing voices -- they are just a bunch of cranks who don’t appreciate all the evidence from “reliable sources” …The media becomes complicit in creating war hysteria…
8. Then -- when the “mission accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier does nothing to halt hostilities -- and the deception starts to fall apart -- the reasons for war evolve through a series of compounded lies -- from WMD -- and on and on -- to keep Iraqis from being killed (Ha) -- to rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure -- and on -- and on -- ad nauseam…
9. When a scapegoat has to be put forth -- “curveball” is “outed” … And lo -- and behold -- we are told that a single, incompetent idiot -- has cost us -- THOUSANDS of military casualties, BILLIONS of dollars (borrowed of course) and UNTOLD dead innocent Iraqi…
Now who can believe that a single dolt could have bamboozled all our “intelligence” agencies (which cost us over 50 billion dollars a year to operate)? By the way, my mother who sits and watches TV news most of he day -- saw through the fake “intelligence” throughout -- George could save a lot of money by disbanding the CIA, etc., and just consult her).
10. And when it comes time to chop a few neo-con heads -- what happens -- they get medals and promotions -- and what is truly amazing -- is that some in this country are still baffled about all the commotion -- “It wasn’t a lie” --
How gullible can you be???
Well -- it’s either a “lie” or “gross incompetence” -- take your pick… (On second thought maybe it’s both)…
13 - Lono
sorry, we tried to warn you before the elections that everything this administration did and said was a lie. You didn't believe us, and you re-elected the fucker. That's your fault, and blood on your hands.
14 - Shark
RealCon, comment #12 is a perfect summary of the history of the build-up to the "war" in Iraq.
I do believe the historians will probably not only verify your Top Ten Ways Bush Bamboozled America, but will expand on them with explicit evidence.
Just an aside: I'm amazed at how many people (like DaveNalle) seem to forget the details of that year or so build-up to the "war".
It's very fresh in my mind, easily recreated via Google -- and if one goes back and reads the press quotes from Bushies et al. and the "news" reports, etc. as the rationale for the "war" continued to slip and slide down a semantics sewer of absurdity, then it's strikingly clear how the American people (and press) were bushwacked into this wasteful 'War in Iraq'.
The Good News: not only is Saddam out of power, but Iraqis have cell phones and satellite TVs!
God Bless 'merica, yer getting sleepy, sleepy, sleepy...
15 - Shark
BillB, thanks for your comments.
You left out:
"We elected Bush. OUR BAD."
16 - Shark
RealCon: "...by the way, my mother who sits and watches TV news most of he day -- saw through the fake 'intelligence' throughout..."
Ditto here. My mom is 85. Her best comment during it all was:
"Honey, don't be so hard on Bush; [here, she leaned forward, glanced around as if harboring a national secret] ..y'know, he's a little retarded."
Gawd luv her.
17 - Dave Nalle
>>Just an aside: I'm amazed at how many people (like DaveNalle) seem to forget the details of that year or so build-up to the "war". <<
Shark, it's not a matter of forgetting the details, it's a matter of whether or not you think they're important. I think the War in Iraq makes sense for a whole bunch of geopolitical reasons, and if they aren't the same as the reasons Bush gave to the public, some of which may or may not have proven to be terribly good reasons, or if I might have done things differently - like stayed out of the whole mess in the first place - I'm not losing any sleep over it. It was exactly the kind of decision the president is supposed to make and he didn't make the worst choice given the circumstances.
Perhaps you should think for a bit about what the alternatives to invading Iraq would have been if Bush wanted to pursue the War on Terror in a serious way and extrapolate where we'd be today. If that's too challenging I'll give you a run-down of the possibilities when I have time to write it up as an article.
Dave
18 - RealCon
The only winners in George’s war are -- the neo-cons who got medals and promotions for their “heroic duty” -- AND -- Israel -- which got rid of Saddam -- Sharon’s self-declared #1 enemy -- without firing a shot or taking a single casualty…
19 - damazing
One point about the build up prior to the war in Iraq that seems to be interesting actions related to Dick Cheney and his work with the intellligence agencies fixing the facts around the policy.
Not Business as Usual
By RAY McGOVERN
former CIA Analyst
As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.
During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush and other very senior policy-makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.
The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy-makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table.
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested--until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."
At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.
But the vice president had spoken. Sad to say, those in charge of the draft National Intelligence Estimate took their cue and stated, falsely, that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
Smoke was blown about aluminum tubes sought by Iraq that, it turns out, were for conventional weapons programs. The rest amounted to things like Hussein's frequent meetings with nuclear scientists and Iraq's foot-dragging in providing information to U.N. inspectors.
Not much heed was paid to the fact that Hussein's son-in-law, who supervised Iraq's nuclear program before he defected in 1995, had told interrogators that Iraq's nuclear capability--save the blueprints--had been destroyed in 1991 at his order. (Documents given to the United States this week confirm that. The Iraqi scientists who provided them added that, even though the blueprints would have given Iraq a head start, no order was given to restart the program; and even had such an order been given, Iraq would still have been years away from producing a nuclear weapon.)
In sum, the evidence presented in last September's intelligence estimate fell far short of what was required to support Cheney's claim that Iraq was on the road to a nuclear weapon. Something scarier had to be produced, and quickly, if Congress was to be persuaded to authorize war. And so the decision was made to dust off the uranium-from-Niger canard.
The White House calculated--correctly--that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of "intelligence" was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. The war could then be waged and won. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery. I asked a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council if he thought that was possible. He pointed out that rigorous NSC procedures call for a very specific response to all vice presidential questions and added that "the fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results."
Did the president himself know that the information used to secure congressional approval for war was based on a forgery? We don't know. But which would be worse--that he knew or that he didn't?
20 - Shark
Dave The True Patriot: "...I might have done things differently - like stayed out of the whole mess [Iraq] in the first place - I'm not losing any sleep over it."
Is it safe to assume you don't have a son or daughter over there?
Or any concern for the $200 Billion + that's gone down that sandpit?
Or the destabilization (bordering on civil war) that has resulted from Bush's Blunder?
Yer a real ugly American, Davey.
21 - Shark
Dave: "...Perhaps you should think for a bit about what the alternatives to invading Iraq would have been if Bush wanted to pursue the War on Terror in a serious way...
Uh, maybe there would be FEWER TERRORISTS?
Well, never mind my opinion; let's check out the words of a few american-hating, liberal leftists, shall we?
========
Teach me, Dave.
22 - Shark
BTW, Osama bin Laden couldn't have designed a more effective recruiting campaign for Islamic Terrorists than the one created by Bush & Co.
(Oh, and there is NO DEBATING THIS, Davey; I can PROVE it with a piece of paper and a #2 pencil)
Thanks in advance,
S
23 - JR
I'm impressed with bin Laden's ability to get the infidel troops out of the Muslim holy lands, weaken the Saudi royal family's grip on power, topple the strongest secular regime in the Arab world, and generally spread Islamic populism throughout the region. And all this without significant imposition on his chosen lifestyle.
Can't condone his methods or his goals, but the guy is remarkably effective.
24 - Dave Nalle
>>Is it safe to assume you don't have a son or daughter over there?<<
Shark, they're not taking 2 year olds right now, so I don't have a lot of choice in the matter. I do have other relatives, friends and neighbors who are in Iraq or who have been in Iraq. I have a fairly close friend who is there now.
>>Or any concern for the $200 Billion + that's gone down that sandpit?<<
I always dislike government spending, but you don't fight a war without spending money, Shark. It's not something that shocks or troubles me.
>>Or the destabilization (bordering on civil war) that has resulted from Bush's Blunder?
Yer a real ugly American, Davey.<<
I like to think of myself as a rational American who thinks before he makes judgements. Not something you'll ever be accused of doing.
>>Uh, maybe there would be FEWER TERRORISTS?<<
did you mean to stick the word 'dead' at the end of that sentence?
>>Well, never mind my opinion; let's check out the words of a few american-hating, liberal leftists, shall we?<<
To counter that I can just point to the thousands of terrorists killed and captured since the Iraq war began.
>>Teach me, Dave.<<
You can't be taught, you need to learn to teach yourself.
Dave
25 - just a man
just like to thank you all for freeing our women to vote and go to school ..next time vote in someone who doesn't appreciate human rights ....