June 6, 2008
New Lies to Cover Up Old Lies on Iraq (Bill Press)
A few years ago, the Senate Intelligence Committee, under Republican leadership, issued a report concluding that intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq was false.
On Thursday, as first reported in The Hill, the committee finally dropped the other shoe and issued a second report accusing the Bush White House of deliberately distorting that intelligence in order to sell George Bush’s war to the American people.
You could almost predict the White House response. Dana Perino and other Bush defenders were quick to say: This is old news. Of course, the intelligence was inaccurate. But Bush didn’t know it was inaccurate at the time.
Poppycock. This is just one more lie to try to cover up all the earlier lies about Iraq. Don’t let them rewrite history.
On Iraq’s involvement with Sept. 11, for example, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and Colin Powell all stated categorically that Saddam Hussein had connections to al Qaeda. On Oct. 14, 2002, for example, Bush said: “This is a man [Saddam Hussein] that we know has had connections with al Qaeda.” Before the United Nations, on Feb. 5, 2003, Colin Powell declared: “But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda network.” Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice echoed the same claim.
But those charges were all based on reports of one alleged meeting in Prague between Sept. 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and an officer of the Iraqi intelligence — a meeting, the Czech government told the Bush White House, which never took place.
Scott McClellan is right. The Senate Intelligence Committee is right. We now know from two more sources that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and Powell all lied to build public support for their war in Iraq, which has now claimed over 4,000 American lives.
And for that, someday, they should all be held responsible.
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.
18 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
American plans to loot Iraqi oil and other Bush war crimes
Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
June 1, 2008
Though Bush has given every other lie and cover story to justify the US war of aggression against Iraq, the real reasons for the 'war' are now openly admitted. An article in American Daily proposes that the oil fields of Iraq be seized and plundered to pay off America's national debt of some 9.3 trillion dollars. I am shocked by the implication that they haven't been so plundered already! I am outraged that the author expects the victims of US aggression pick up the tab for Bush's capital crime! The article proposes that the US commit yet another war crime.
As immoral as anything put forward by Bush/Cheney, this plan differs only in the distribution of booty. Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force would conspire to further enrich the robber barons of big oil, themselves now war criminals under international conventions to which the US is legally bound whether Bush likes it or not! The alternative plan is a 'neat' rationalization and equally reprehensible.
We should create a taxpayer-owned oil company (Perhaps, call it US Oil?). It would require a long-term (maybe a 99 year) lease on a portion of Iraq’s oil fields. The price of such a lease?…The spilled blood of American servicemen!
Since the oil fields are up and running, that oil should be sold on the open market for $20 a barrel. The revenues from the oil sales would go directly and solely to pay off our debt. In addition, with a large volume of the world’s oil being sold at $20 a barrel, the price would plummet worldwide, translating into affordable fuel prices once again.
The taxpayers would be repaid for the treasure we have lost in Iraq, and a long-term solution to our growing need for oil would be accomplished without any further drilling in this country. It would also provide time to increase long-overdue and meaningful fuel efficiency standards in our automobiles, as well as making alternative energy solutions practical to most Americans.
–Dave Gibson, Analysis with Political and Social Commentary
American Daily has proposed the immoral theft of resources that do not belong to the United States. Bluntly, Mr. Gibson, what you have proposed is a war crime.
b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
–Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, World Tribunal on Iraq - Istanbul, June 23 - 27, 2005
Secondly, Dick Cheney's cronies –consisting of Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil, BP America Inc, having lied, schemed and waged bloody war –would never agree! Dick Cheney and George W. Bush did not invade Iraq in order to pay off the national debt; nor did Dick Cheney and George W. Bush conspire with the elite base in order to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. Moreover, the transcript of US Ambassador April Glaspie's 'interview' with Saddam Hussein proves that the US 'lured' Saddam into attacking Kuwait because Saddam had wanted to lower the price of oil. Hussein's attack of Kuwait was the pretext needed by Bush.
Bush was determined to wage war on Iraq. Nothing could have been done to prevent it. The UK Daily Mail reported that Hussein had agreed to exile for a paltry $1 billion but Bush, hellbent on war, refused. It was, in fact, the inevitable result of war fever and greed. Investors, smelling 'oil profits' and 'defense contracts', bid up the prices of Boeing and Raytheon stocks. It was a heady time for war profiteers and robber barons.
That the author of the 'American Daily' article believes that his proposed 'oil lease' is already paid for with the 'blood of American soldiers misses the point that aggressive war is aggressive war, that the theft of a nation's resources is a war crime whether it is perpetrated by Dick Cheney's consortium or by a collective of 'the people'! Theft is theft and, in this case, it is also a war crime. That the US finds itself in a position in which it must scheme to plunder is proof that the US is poised for collapse as was Rome when its mercenaries sought out the foreign booty to be looted in Briton, Dacia, and other resource rich targets of conquest.
As Gore Vidal pointed out in his book –The Decline and Fall of the American Empire –the founders sought to create an oligarchical state in which two wings of a single party would preside over the distribution of 'bread an circuses'. That's certainly what we got. The only issue of concern to a ruling class, Vidal writes, is whether 'to coerce or to bribe' a powerless majority. Vidal is correct. The fall of American empire will resemble that of Rome in every major trend.
*
Comment by war crime — June 6, 2008 @ 6:53 am
Bush's "New Middle East" Revealed
by scott creighton Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
Tell A Friend
Details of the new long term security deal that the Bush administration has been trying to get passed in Iraq are troubling indeed. The Independent has published leaked details of the plan and it’s no wonder that even Maliki is resisting it.
According to the report, Bush wants 50 permanent military bases, full control of Iraqi airspace, free reign to detain and arrest Iraq civilians and conduct military operations without consulting with Iraqi government officials, complete immunity for U.S. soldiers as well as contractors, and all of this is irrevocable no matter who wins the election in Nov.
When you combine this piece of legislation with the Union busting tactics the provisional authority established and the Hydrocarbon law that they are still trying to stuff down the Iraqi’s throat, you begin to get a glimpse of just what kind of “freedom” that Bush and his associates have been gunning for since day one.
This comes out just in time to put a damper on Scott McClellan’s revised history of the Bush administration that paints the entire administration as a well meaning group of idealists that simply wanted to bring democracy to the middle East. Is this what McClellan calls “democracy”?
George W. Bush is doing to Iraq what Saddam tried to do to Kuwait. It is a war crime; an international war of aggression. It is an invasion. and it is criminal in the eyes of civilized society. His “shock and awe” waged on the civilian targets in the opening days of this criminal act are no different than the bombing of London or the Rape of Nanking.
This secret legislation he and Cheney have been trying to force the free people of Iraq to sign proves that his intent has always been criminal. They lied to start this war; they lied to continue it; and they lie now to buy time to keep their corporations in place to rend from the country all the profits they can take. There is no place for imperialism in democracy. We the people would have had none of this war crime had the administration been honest about their intentions to start. That is why they lied. That is why they will continue to lie.
This is not America. They have burned it, rotted it from within with their fear mongering and their race-baiting and their crippling of the economy to foster anger and bitterness between us. They pit left verses right and black verses white, anything to distract us from our real enemy, the real terrorists; them.
How can you not know what they are and what they are capable of? Have you eyes? This deal they press upon the free people of Iraq will enslave them to ruthless usurpers from abroad. Blackwater will move throughout their homes with complete immunity. Dyncorp will disappear anyone who dares stand up to them. Is this what we will allow in our name? Is there no limit to our complacency?
They will make a slave nation of Iraq for their private profits to rival Saudi Arabia’s slave workforce and China’s. This is the “freedom” Scott McClellan speaks of when he talks about Bush’s intentions for Iraq. This is “The New Middle East”.
McClellan’s books should be returned now. Take them back and return them to the stores for he is a liar and a fraud. Like a “Thousand Little Pieces” his work must be publicly ridiculed. They should be tossed into piles and burned in the streets.
McClellan’s book are more than simply lies. They are a fraudulent attempt, by the writer and the current administration, to use the governance of this great nation to spin greed and corruption into benevolence and charity. How much of our time our tax-payer time was used to hatch this pathetic attempt to cover their criminal intent?
We must deny them their prize; their “victory” in Iraq for their victory is theft. These are war criminals and they have proven that beyond any doubt with this illegal pact. it is immoral; it is unjust; it is oppression on a national scale. George W. Bush took out a paper tiger so that he could replace him as dictator of Iraq. And we cannot allow it to continue any longer.
Comment by SOFA — June 6, 2008 @ 6:55 am
It must have been a mass delusion since other governments came to the conclusion before us and agreed in unison. However, it's always better if you want to make a political statement to simplify a complicated situation into one bogeyman. That way the simple minded minions will buy into it, because facts are sometimes difficult to find, and can be complicated. The bottom line is, the intelligence didn't just come from a Republican dominated sub-committee. Committee members can issue minority reports or go public. The Democratic members believed the intelligence also, and I can't believe you write this trash sometimes.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 6, 2008 @ 6:59 am
I'm a Republican and I think George Bush is one of the most incompetent and deceitful Presidents in U.S. history. In fact, I did not vote for him in 2000 or 2004 because I didn't think he was the best candidate. That being said, I will remain a Republican because of the values of the overall party, not the values and actions of a select few. The reason I mention this is because there are people who undoubtedly chime in here who will say that ALL Republicans are bad based on the action or inaction of George Bush. That's the easy thing to say, a monkey can make that claim.
The fact is that George Bush, who happens to be Republican, is an incompetent president. Not all Republicans are like George Bush.
Comment by John Simmons — June 6, 2008 @ 9:15 am
RR;
Quit lying to save Bush. If you remeber Cheney's energy paln early in the administration that the USSC ruled in favor of Cheney to keep teh American people from knowing what they were up to. Scott Ritter was trying to tell everyone who would listen that the WMDs that Bush said Saddam had were lies because he had been on the team that destroyed them. Han Blix and his team never found any banned weapons and he had a free run of the place. For you to, now, try and spin this as something that the Dems are pulling to make Bush look bad is false. Bush lied this country into war and for that he, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfie and the rest should be impeached and tried for murder.
Comment by Mike Coleman — June 6, 2008 @ 9:50 am
I concur with Simmons, not all R's are bad, just as not all D's are bad. Despite Simmons being a Repub, at least he can cut through the BS and realize Bush is utterly incompetent and a failure.
Now Rosie, you are in a complete state of denial, ignoring the facts and letting you GOoPer bias cloud you vision. But we've all recognized this for months now.
Comment by Lester — June 6, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama all lied that the war was lost. All wanted the troops out immediately because it was lost. All denied any good news. Now that it's being won, when was the last time you heard any of them say "the war is lost"? But also when was the last time you heard them say "things have finally turned around"? These are liars and traitors, every one of them. Bush who believed Saddam was developing WMDs based on intelligence and Saddam's behavior can't hold a candle to these professional traitors.
Comment by Igor R. — June 6, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
It must hurt for the blabbering W brigade that they're lackeys for such a miserable, incompetent and arrogant liar as Bush Jr.
It must really hurt that the overwhelming majority of voters want nothing more to do with Bush Jr in any way, shape or form.
And Igor, all that "Dems want us to lose in Iraq" BS didn't play too well with the voters in 2006, did it?
What makes you logically think that easily-debunked crock is going to be just the ticket for GOP gains come this November?
Comment by KingCranky — June 6, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
KingCranky, the situation was a little different in 2006, we were actually losing. Now we are winning, thanks to the surge and change in strategy, by any measures, statistics, milestones. To your insane mind committed to defeat no good news are good. You will not acknowledge one iota of good news because to do it would be to admit that Bush can do something right, and you in your animalistic hatred of him can't do that.
Comment by Igor R. — June 6, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
The Democrats hate America and have invested heavily in our defeat. I don't think America is going to go for Obama once they figure that out.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — June 6, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Two points to make:
First, to deal with Igor who thinks that the "war" is being won, by what definition is the war being won?
During the recent hearings with Petraeus and Crocker, Obama asked what "victory" would look like and it was pretty telling that no definition of victory was forthcoming. It's pretty hard to reach a goal when the goal can't even be defined.
For those who want to read the report and decide for themselves whether Bush & Co lied, go to:
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov
and decide for yourselves.
Comment by smilinjack — June 6, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
smilinjack, by whatever definition any war is won: the enemy (Al Qaeda and Shiite Militias) is being killed and reduced to inconsequential numbers, the territory is getting to be controlled by friendly forces. A free, stable, rich Iraq is emerging from the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe of historic proportions. An enormous army, friendly to America is taking control. But keep looking in your Webster's dictionary, Marxist edition, for the definition of "winning the war in Iraq". Perhaps if Obama does win the election (by what definition I ask you???), it will appear there magically and will be defined as "whatever happens in Iraq under our Lord Barack the Magnificent."
Comment by Igor R. — June 6, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Bush lied, and history will judge it so. It is a done deal.
Comment by Gary Anderson — June 6, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Igor, who says we're winning? How many bench marks have been met? We've heard this before, over and over. Liberators, last throes, mission accomplished- it's old news dude as well as irrelevant. The bar has been lowered to the point that success almost equates to failure. Are we ready to "stand down"? This entire ordeal has been nothing more than buying time so Bush can pass this on to the next leader. We can't win this nonsense war on fear/terror. There will always be people that hate us and another attack will always be a possibility. AQ will not hop a transatlantic flight to fight us in our streets contingent we fight them there. We are not defeating AQ in Iraq and you are grasping at imaginary straws that no longer hold up to American scrutiny.
Comment by andy42302 — June 6, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Poor Igor, can't get it right for his blind adoration of Bush Jr.
When the violence in Iraq decreases, the US can't leave.
When the violence in Iraq increases, the US can't leave.
Like I said, the "Dems want to appease the terrorists and lose Iraq" isn't going to play any better with the voters now than it did in 2006.
Now, if any Bush Jr lackey can show the voters support an indefinite military stay in Iraq, prove me wrong.
Oh, and if you can also show how invading and occupying Iraq has actually reined in Usama bin Laden or Iran, that would be nice.
But you Bush Jr lapdogs just keep wailing and gnashing your teeth with easily-debunked blather leading right up to Election Day, it's pure Schadenfreude to my ears, as the voters will never again support the Bush Jr Administration in any way, shape or form, nor will the voters rally around McCain when he promises a third Bush Jr term.
Too Bad, So Sad.
Comment by KingCranky — June 6, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Win or lase in Iraq, we lose. Our economy is shot, Our national dept is over 9trillion and there is no way we will ever pay it off. No matter what the outcome, we lose.
Comment by Cutter — June 9, 2008 @ 1:14 am
andy, I say we are winning because I am following the progress closely. The Iraqi forces have now taken most of Sadrist militia territory, cleared out Al Qaeda's last remaining stronghold in Mosul, and war is winding down. The tranfer of military authority is accelarating. Suicide attacks will continue there for the next twenty years, but they don't really mean anything militarirly. Combat forces will be out of there in three years, regardless of who wins the election. What are you arguing about, one extra year of transition under McCain vs. Obama?
Comment by Igor R. — June 9, 2008 @ 1:51 am
KingCranky, I have no idea how Iraq will play with the voters. One thing I do know that the stories about Iraq have disappeared almost completely, so to me this is a confirmation that the war is being won but also that the press only cares when the news are bad. And informed decision it won't be.
Comment by Igor R. — June 9, 2008 @ 1:53 am