"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Thursday, May 05, 2005

It isn't just a slogan any more
Posted by Jill | 1:04 PM
"Bush Lied, Thousands Died."

You've heard it over and over again these last two years, as George W. Bush's less-than-excellent Iraq advanture has ground on and on and on. In 2002, almost a half-million people marched in the streets of New York City. WE knew Bush was lying. WE knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. WE knew that he was cynically using the collective nervous breakdown Americans had on 9/11/01 to further his hard-on for war against Saddam Hussein. Some believe it was a war of greed, to secure cheap oil for American SUV drivers and big profits for Bush's cronies. Others still cling to the WMD fantasy. Some think poor George was misled by incompetent intelligence agents. Still others regard it as "Family business", whether to "avenge daddy" or to resolve some psychosexual issues with Daddy as to who's packing more in his pants. Still others regard it as a war to benefit Israel, due to the neocon influence at the Pentagon.

But whatever you thought, the truth is clear: George W. Bush lied his way into an unnecessary war. He wasn't lied to, he wasn't mistaken, he didn't receive bad intelligence.

He lied.

The President of the United States, who is accountable to We the People, lied to us because he wanted a war.

And you won't hear a peep about it in the American mainstream media.

Where you will see it is in the Times of London, where a secret British memo, written on July 23, 2002 -- eight months before the Iraq war, comes right out and says that the intelligence was cooked to match the plan (emphases mine):

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.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

[snip]

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

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.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.


Let me repeat that: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

Bush had decided to have his war, and nothing was going to stop him, certainly nothing as pesky and inconvenient as, oh, say, REALITY. The TRUTH. And not only was he going to have his war, but he was going to time it around the elections, to get the maximum political bang for the buck.

How's THAT for cynicism?

But have the U.S. media covered this? No. Go ahead. Google it. You'll find NOTHING in the mainstream media.

What part of "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" don't Americans understand? Or is this Administration SO vile and SO corrupt that Americans just don't care anymore?

Bill Clinton lied about a stupid and careless extramarital liaison, which was found after an exhaustive investigation into a 25-year-old land deal yielded nothing -- and the very same leaders who are the head cheerleaders for Bush's meatgrinder in Iraq felt that warranted removal from office.

This president lied to the American people because he wanted to feed American kids into a meatgrinder -- for money, for greed, for power, because he likes to watch stuff blow up real good, or to feel better about the empty place where a soul should be and the impotence he feels as a human being.

And this is what Americans think of as a leader?
0 comments
Bookmark and Share