The deceit of the Bush Administration on Iraq - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Mavdog · 05-09-2005, 12:41 PM

OK, here comes the truth. From AOA (that's "America's Only Ally") on Iraq, Great Britain, comes the news that the intelligence data reporting the existance of those elusive WMD was cooked...yes, the White House orchestrated a campaign to justify the invasion of Iraq by using the intelligence community (that would be the CIA and such) in putting out for the public's comsumption false information.

Now, I have never accused the President of lying about Iraq and his often repeated claims of WMD existence, and when none were found I still never made any accusation against Bush beyond errors in judgement and planning.

However, that now appears to have been wrong. This leak of a MI-6 memo clearly shows that Bush and his team wanted the claim of WMD to be credible IN SPITE OF the evidence they did not exist; that the Bush Administration was so focused on their goal of removing Hussein they deliberately deceived the public, to the point of putting out information that they knew was wrong, and blocked the truth from coming out; that the goal of war against Iraq was put into place a year before it happened, meaning the whole UN show with Powell was a charade.

The American public was lied to by the Bush Administration, plain and simple.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British memo: Bush bent data to fit Iraq policy

By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Knight Ridder News Service

WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked during Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, during which the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service reported on a recent visit to Washington.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was telling the American public that it had not decided whether to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," or weapons of mass destruction.

"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," the memo says.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify invading Iraq. It has pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a panel appointed by Bush. Both say the CIA and other intelligence agencies seriously misjudged Iraqi weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided to use military force to overthrow Saddam.

The British government hasn't disavowed the newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls seeking comment Thursday.

A former senior U.S. official called the memo "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002 and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign-policy advisers were insisting that no plans to attack Iraq were on the president's desk.

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"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," the memo quotes Straw as saying.

Straw reportedly proposed that Saddam be given an ultimatum to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors, which could help justify the eventual use of force.

In August 2002, Powell persuaded Bush to present the case against Saddam at the United Nations and to push for renewed weapons inspections.

But there were deep divisions within the White House over that course of action. The British document says that the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route."

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush to explain the document's allegations, an aide said.

kingrex · 05-09-2005, 02:19 PM

Grounds for impeachment, Mavdog?

Mavdog · 05-09-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: kingrex
Grounds for impeachment, Mavdog?

I'm not sure it is grounds for impeachment. it would have been grounds for not re-electing him tho, and it's too late for that.

This reveals a mindset within the administration that should cause us all to question their honesty.

kingrex · 05-09-2005, 03:46 PM

Do you think it's coincidence that this all came out AFTER elections are done in both countries?

MFFL41 · 05-10-2005, 12:14 PM

Oh no presidents lie? Gasp. I think everyone was claiming that anyway. Sadaam wasn't a threat to the U.S. but more a threat to Israel (which we are a ally of).

I support the president, but everyone knew about this anyway. Next....

Mavdog · 05-10-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MFFL41
Oh no presidents lie? Gasp. I think everyone was claiming that anyway. Sadaam wasn't a threat to the U.S. but more a threat to Israel (which we are a ally of).

I support the president, but everyone knew about this anyway. Next....

are you serious? "everyone knew" is inaccurate, just on this board there were a very few who questioned the pres's forthrightness, almost all were steadfast in their support.

if the American public "knew" that the Administration was putting out lies they wouldn't have re-elected him. the american electorate doesn't like being lied to...

kingrex · 05-10-2005, 02:04 PM

But we sure don't mind a philanderer . . . [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

MFFL41 · 05-11-2005, 09:02 AM

Quote:

are you serious? "everyone knew" is inaccurate, just on this board there were a very few who questioned the pres's forthrightness, almost all were steadfast in their support.

if the American public "knew" that the Administration was putting out lies they wouldn't have re-elected him. the american electorate doesn't like being lied to...

Ok let me re-phrase myself, cause you didn't catch my drift. It was out there, for weeks and weeks and weeks. Everyone had an idea about it, but i don't think anyone really looked into it. I don't care, really. Aren't there always problems with war? Anyone could make the case that going after hitler was wrong because he didn't attack us. It's just a matter of opinion.

Mavdog · 05-11-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: MFFL41

Quote:

are you serious? "everyone knew" is inaccurate, just on this board there were a very few who questioned the pres's forthrightness, almost all were steadfast in their support.

if the American public "knew" that the Administration was putting out lies they wouldn't have re-elected him. the american electorate doesn't like being lied to...

Ok let me re-phrase myself, cause you didn't catch my drift. It was out there, for weeks and weeks and weeks. Everyone had an idea about it, but i don't think anyone really looked into it. I don't care, really. Aren't there always problems with war? Anyone could make the case that going after hitler was wrong because he didn't attack us. It's just a matter of opinion.

The Administration has characterized the failure of the intelligence to be simple mistakes. Difficulty in penetrating the closed society of Hussein.
The revelation that it is not a mistake, but rather an orchestrated duplicity of the public, is unacceptable.

The discussion of if the war in Iraq was justified by the brutality of Hussein's rule is a seperate one from the issue of if the Bush Administration manipulated the facts and lied to the American public.

BTW you forget that Germany declared war on the US in December, 1941, prior to the US declaring war on Germany.

kingrex · 05-11-2005, 05:09 PM

"lied" is such an ugly word. How about told a tall tale.

FishForLunch · 05-11-2005, 10:47 PM

Does Mi6 so their intelligence to Tony Blair? If so Looks like TB too is decitful. I guess Saddam done is a good thing, too bad saddam was wronged.

Evilmav2 · 05-12-2005, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
I guess Saddam done is a good thing, too bad saddam was wronged.

I guess poor Saddam was just another victim wronged by the vast, right wing conspiracy...

kingrex · 05-12-2005, 10:19 AM

Sadly, it is not a conspiracy, but politics as usual be it right- or left-wing.

capitalcity · 05-13-2005, 06:51 AM

Nothing regarding war is ever 'plain and simple' Mavdog.

Mavdog · 05-13-2005, 10:18 AM

OTOH, there is nothing that justifies our leadership manufacturing supposed "facts" to support their desired course of action. in fact, conduct of that sort makes the label "leadership" rather void. Lying to the public shows nothing approaching leadership.

dalmations202 · 05-13-2005, 03:22 PM

I guess I'll buy into this one.

JFK -- what came out after the fact? affairs, near world nuclear war, payoffs by his father, etc
Johnson -- what came out after the fact? all the "big business" done with contractors during the Vietnam war
Nixon -- what came out after the fact? watergate
Carter - what came out after the fact? Iran hostage issues/problems, failed diplomacy, failed military leadership, lied to farmers
Regan - what came out after the fact? Iran contra issues,
GBush senior -- what came out after the fact? "NO NEW TAXES"
Clinton -- what came out after the fact? massive affairs (blatantly lied to the electorate), murder cover-ups, intelligence sold to the Chinese
GW - what came out after the fact? Took out a dictator (bad guy by all accounts) and then gave shaky evidence as to why.... could have said "gut feeling", questionable business dealings after the war for rebuilding,

Sorry, but he doesn't look any worse than any of the others we have had since I have been alive.

reeds · 05-13-2005, 04:07 PM

So dalmations..billions of dollars to fight for a war in Iraq, not to mention the thousands of our soldiers DEAD, you can actually say "it doesnt look any worse" than Bill Clintons affairs??? OMG...some of you people just dont get it do you?

dalmations202 · 05-13-2005, 04:42 PM

No reeds, you don't get it. I spent time in the military. I have done. I don't just bitch and squirm. I speak from experience, and having been there.

You speak from what political papers, and decision to "protest" for a issue that you really have no idea about. I will admit though; I don't know how big a liar is GW. But, I know how big of one Clinton is/was. He was a far bigger liar/treasonist than you will ever know. But read more, I still have hope for you. I am guessing it will take years for you to start understanding politics, intelligence, and that you only read the pieces they want you to read. Right now, you see headlines........maybe someday you will realize that the media is just a tool, used by both sides. And both sides are corrupt.

Chiwas · 05-13-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: dalmations202
And both sides are corrupt.

Finally, a light in the road.

This forum should consider two milestones, the first when all agreed that Bush lied, and the second would be when all agreed that both sides have been corrupted, their politics or they.

All further comments should be put under those bases.

FishForLunch · 05-15-2005, 09:52 PM

Is there any war the left would approve off? Kosovo is the only one I can think off. That one is acceptable because of ethnic cleanising and human right violations. Iraqi war may be illegal beacause Saddam was our favourite king of dictator. Who was responsible for starting the Vietnam war, Nixon, Johnson or JFK?

kingrex · 05-16-2005, 09:06 AM

I wonder if the war itself is objectionable or the reason for war?