Iraq shouldn't even be a category! Iraq never posed an urgent threat to the United States, nor did it have anything to do with the 9/11 attack. The simple fact is that BUSH LIED ! ! !
Article II, paragraph 4 of the United Nations's Charter declares,

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

As the authors of the appeal already cited observe, Iran has not attacked the United States; the United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter; consequently, any attack by the United States on Iran would be illegal under international law, but also under the Constitution of the United States, which recognizes treaties as the supreme law of the land - illegal also, of course, for the military who have taken an oath to the Constitution.
Source: "Europeans, Let Us Prevent the War Against Iran" By Michel Rocard, Yehuda Atai and Jean-Marie Matagne - Libération - 16 November 2007



The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that "to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime". The tribunal's charter placed "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" at the top of the list of war crimes. Source: "How Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people" by George Monbiot - The Guardian (UK) - January 1, 2008



Bush lie[s] when he insists that the United States invaded Iraq to enforce a United Nations resolution and that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “chose war” by barring U.N. weapons inspectors.

Bush dusted off that old canard on Nov. 7 while standing next to French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a press conference at George Washington’s estate at Mount Vernon in Virginia.

Responding to a question from a French journalist about Bush’s dispute with France over the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. president said:

“We had a difference of opinion with your great country over whether or not I should have used military force to enforce U.N. demands. … I just want to remind you that [U.N. Resolution] 1441 was supported by France and the United States, which clearly said to the dictator, you will disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. Now, I'm the kind of person that when somebody says something, I take them for their word.”

Bush has made this same false argument scores of times dating back to July 2003, several months after the invasion when it was becoming clear that Saddam Hussein had told the truth when his government reported to the U.N. in 2002 that Iraq’s WMD stockpiles had been eliminated.

Hussein also relented in fall 2002, allowing U.N. weapons inspectors to travel freely around Iraq checking out suspected WMD sites. The U.N. inspectors found nothing and reported growing Iraqi cooperation in the early months of 2003. In other words, Hussein was complying with Resolution 1441.

Nevertheless, Bush was determined to invade Iraq and tried to get the U.N. Security Council to go along. However, France and most other members of the Security Council rebuffed Bush and sought more time for the inspectors.

Then, in defiance of the U.N. – and in violation of the U.N. Charter which prohibits aggressive wars – Bush forced out the U.N. inspectors and launched his “shock and awe” assault. After a bloody three-week campaign, U.S.-led forces toppled Hussein’s government, but found no WMD caches.

Instead of admitting the obvious facts – that he had launched an unprovoked war on false pretenses – Bush rewrote the history. Starting at a White House press briefing on July 14, 2003, Bush began insisting that he had no choice but to invade Iraq because Hussein wouldn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.

Bush told reporters: “We gave him [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power.”

Facing no contradiction from the White House press corps, Bush repeated this lie in varied forms over the next four-plus years as part of his litany defending the invasion.

On Jan. 27, 2004, for example, Bush said, “We went to the United Nations, of course, and got an overwhelming resolution – 1441 – unanimous resolution, that said to Saddam, you must disclose and destroy your weapons programs, which obviously meant the world felt he had such programs. He chose defiance. It was his choice to make, and he did not let us in.”

As the years went by, Bush’s lie and its unchallenged retelling took on the color of truth.

At a March 21, 2006, news conference, Bush again blamed the war on Hussein’s defiance of U.N. demands for unfettered inspections.

“I was hoping to solve this [Iraq] problem diplomatically,” Bush said. “The world said, ‘Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.’ … We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did.”

At a press conference on May 24, 2007, Bush offered a short-hand version, even inviting the journalists to remember the invented history.

“As you might remember back then, we tried the diplomatic route: [U.N. Resolution] 1441 was a unanimous vote in the Security Council that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. So the choice was his [Hussein’s] to make. And he made a choice that has subsequently caused him to lose his life.”

Not only have Washington journalists stayed consistently silent in the face of this false history, some have even adopted Bush’s lie as their own. For instance, in a July 2004 interview, ABC’s veteran newsman Ted Koppel used it to explain why he – Koppel – thought the invasion of Iraq was justified.

“It did not make logical sense that Saddam Hussein, whose armies had been defeated once before by the United States and the Coalition, would be prepared to lose control over his country if all he had to do was say, ‘All right, U.N., come on in, check it out,’” Koppel told Amy Goodman, host of “Democracy Now.”

Of course, Hussein did tell the U.N. to “come on in, check it out.” But that was in the real world, not in the faux reality that governs modern Washington.

Bush’s Iraq lies are now entering a new political generation, seeping into Campaign 2008. At the Republican debate on June 5, 2007, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defended Bush’s invasion on the grounds that Hussein refused to let U.N. weapons inspectors in to search for WMD.

If Saddam “had opened up his country to I.A.E.A. inspectors, and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction,” the war might have been averted, Romney said.

Not surprisingly, Romney’s false statement was no more challenged by the CNN debate moderators than Bush’s earlier versions had been. By constant repetition, Bush has transformed his lie into what passes for truth in modern American politics.
Source: "Bush's Favorite Lie" By Robert Parry - www.consortiumnews.com



What threat was a country of 25 million impoverished people with no Air Force, no Navy, no weapons stockpiles, no nuclear weapons, and no connection to al-Qaeda? What were they going to do to us, make prank phone calls???


The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

As recently as Aug. 21, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Mr. Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.

The C.I.A. report also contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case for going to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.

The panel concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’
Source: "C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief" By MARK MAZZETTI - NY Times - September 9, 2006



The Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, but the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers, a former C.I.A. officer has charged.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase.

The officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20 years, including several years in a clandestine unit assigned to gather intelligence related to illicit weapons, was fired in 2004.

In his lawsuit, he says his dismissal was punishment for his reports questioning the agency's assumptions on a series of weapons-related matters. Among other things, he charged that he had been the target of retaliation for his refusal to go along with the agency's intelligence conclusions.

The former officer's lawyer, Roy W. Krieger, said he could not discuss his client's claims. He likened his client's situation to that of Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, the clandestine C.I.A. officer whose role was leaked to the press after her husband publicly challenged some administration conclusions about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (The former officer and Ms. Wilson worked in the same unit of the agency.)

"In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed," said Mr. Krieger, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

In his lawsuit, the former officer said that in the spring of 2001, he met with a valuable informant who had examined and purchased parts of Iraqi centrifuges. Centrifuges are used to turn uranium into fuel for nuclear weapons. The informant reported that the Iraqi government had long since canceled its uranium enrichment program and that the C.I.A. could buy centrifuge components if it wanted to.

Throughout much of the 1990's, the C.I.A. and other United States intelligence agencies believed that Iraq had largely abandoned its nuclear weapons program. In December 2000, the intelligence agencies issued a classified assessment stating that Iraq did not appear to have taken significant steps toward the reconstitution of the program, according to the presidential commission report concerning illicit weapons.

But that assessment changed in early 2001 - a critical period in the intelligence community's handling of the Iraqi nuclear issue, the commission concluded. In March 2001, intelligence indicating that Iraq was seeking high-strength aluminum tubes from China greatly influenced the agency's thinking. Analysts soon came to believe that the only possible explanation for Iraq's purchase of the tubes was to develop high-tech centrifuges for a new uranium enrichment program.

By the following year, the agency's view had hardened, despite differing interpretations of the tubes' purposes by other intelligence experts. In October 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate, produced by the intelligence community under pressure from Congress, stated that most of the nation's intelligence agencies believed that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, based in large part on the aluminum tubes.
Source: "Spy's Notes on Iraqi Aims Were Shelved, Suit Says" By JAMES RISEN - NY Times - August 1, 2005



The war in Iraq was sold to the American public the way a cheap car salesman sells a lemon. Dick Cheney assured the nation that Americans in Iraq would be "greeted as liberators." Kenneth Adelman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board said the war would be a "cakewalk." And Donald Rumsfeld said on National Public Radio: "I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
Source: "The Army's Hard Sell" - By BOB HERBERT - NY Times - June 27, 2005



A secret memo from inside [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair's coven discovered this week [first week of May, 2005] made clear that Britain's Prime Minister knew damn well, eight months before we invaded Iraq, that George Bush was cooking the intelligence info on "WDM," but Blair agreed to tag along with his master.
Source: TONY BLAIR DIDN'T WIN - May 5, 2005 - By Greg Palast



On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun."

"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. (There it is.) The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. 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."

After some paragraphs on tactical considerations, Rycroft reports, "No decisions had been taken, but he (British defense secretary) thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. 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 neighbors, 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 U.N. 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-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case."

The memo was a huge story in Britain, but is almost unreported here. At least it finally settles this ridiculous debate about how Dear Leader Bush just wanted to bring democracy all along and we did it all for George Washington.
Source: "They lied to us" by Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate 05.10.05



Here's what John Dean, key Watergate figure, wrote about Dubya's case for the Iraq war in a June 2003 column for findlaw.com: "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked... Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."

That's exactly what the Downing Street Memo, first reported a month ago by the Times of London, proves. The memo is an account of the report given to British leadership by Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6 (the equivalent of the CIA), after a meeting with top White House officials. Dearlove described, fully eight months before Dubya went to war, an American determination to go to war and to manipulate public and Congressional opinion with what Dearlove characterized as a "thin" case for WMD and links to Al-Qaeda.

The memo has scarcely been mentioned in the country's leading newspapers, and has been completely ignored by evening network news.

The result is that the information needed to impeach George Bush for lying to Congress, the U.N., and the American public about the most serious imaginable matter -- the use of military force -- is all out there. It's been reported, in foreign media, in alternative press, in the margins. But it has not been championed by major media, and it has subsequently not been taken to heart by either the American public or by Congress. George Bush and his aides intentionally lied about the case for mounting an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. The outcome has been a conflict that has left over 1,400 American soldiers dead, many thousands more maimed, and an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead. If there were ever any doubt about the intentional nature of the disinformation campaign waged upon us to justify this war, the Downing Street Memo erases those doubts.
Source: "Waiting for a scandal: Watergate story might never have broken in today's media climate" by Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com - 6/2/05



The entire memo is reprinted here - SpinShield editor

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02


cc: 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.

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.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

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.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Source: "IMPEACHMENT TIME: 'FACTS WERE FIXED.'" - May 5, 2005 - By Greg Palast



[S]ix more documents have surfaced, their authenticity not challenged. One shows that Britain and the US heavily increased bombing raids on Iraq in the summer of 2002 - when London and Washington were still insisting that war was a last resort - even though the Foreign Office's own lawyers had advised that such action was illegal. These "spikes of activity" were aimed at provoking Saddam into action that might justify war. Other documents confirm that Blair had agreed to back regime change in the spring of 2002, that he was warned it was illegal and that ministers were told to "create the conditions" that would make it legal. Other gems include the admission that the threat from Saddam and WMD had not increased and that US attempts to link Baghdad to al-Qaida were "frankly unconvincing".
Source: "Yes, they did lie to us" by Jonathan Freedland The Guardian (UK) - June 22, 2005



An independent [9-11] commission threw cold water Wednesday [June 16, 2004] on the administration’s insistent claims of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. That comes on top of the administration's failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Both ideas had been central ingredients of Mr. Bush's rationale for invading.

At times, the administration has seemed to suggest that Mr. Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against America. More that two-thirds of Americans expressed a belief last year that Iraq was behind the attacks, and [Vice President Dick] Cheney said at the time, "It's not surprising people make that connection." As recently as Monday [June 14, 2004], Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda," and Mr. Bush defended the vice president's assertion.

The commission investigating the Sept 11 attacks bluntly contradicted the White House. It said there was no evidence Iraq and al-Qaeda had a collaborative relationship. In fact, the commission said Iraq had ignored al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's request to establish training camps in Iraq and for help in obtaining weapons.

Last fall, Mr. Cheney referred to what he called a credible but unconfirmed intelligence report that Mohammed Atta, leader of the Sept 11 highjackers, had met at least once in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attacks. The commission said that meeting never happened.

While the commission disputed any prewar al-Qaeda relationship with Mr. Hussein, there is no doubt that the terrorist group is in Iraq now.

Comments by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice alleging links between al-Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam Hussein:
  • 2002
    • Dr. Rice, Sept 25: "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."
    • Mr. Bush, Oct 7: "We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade" and "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
  • 2003
    • Mr. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28: "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, and secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
    • Mr. Bush, Feb 6: "Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al-Qaeda" and " Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
  • 2004
    • Mr. Cheney, Jan. 21: "I continue to believe -- I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there."
    • Mr. Cheney, June 14: Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al-Qaeda."
Source: "Findings raise more questions about war decision" by Terrence Hunt - Associated Press from Dallas Morning News - 6/17/04



LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
-- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
-- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
-- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
-- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
-- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."
-- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."
-- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
-- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited."
-- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.
Source: "Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq" By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet.org -- June 27, 2003.



The President and Vice-President made every effort to make the connection, because if it's not for the war on terror that we went into Iraq, then what was it for? And in fact, in the letter to the Congress justifying the war, this is what Bush said, "I have also determined that the use of armed forces against Iraq is consistant with taking necessary action against those nations who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th." Can you make a closer connection between going into Iraq and September 11th than that letter? There is none.
Source: Comments by Margaret Carlson on "The Capital Gang" - CNN - 6/19/04



Why US intelligence sources got it so wrong

According to former Bush officials, all defense and intelligence sources, senior administration figures created a shadow agency of Pentagon analysts staffed mainly by ideological amateurs to compete with the CIA and its military counterpart, the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The agency, called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), was set up by the defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to second-guess CIA information and operated under the patronage of hard line conservatives in the top rungs of the administration, the Pentagon and at the White House, including Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The ideologically driven network functioned like a shadow government, much of it off the official payroll and beyond congressional oversight. But it proved powerful enough to prevail in a struggle with the State Department and the CIA by establishing a justification for war.

[T]he office hired scores of temporary "consultants". They included lawyers, congressional staffers, and policy wonks from the numerous rightwing think tanks in Washington. Few had experience in intelligence.

CIA director, George Tenet...said his agency was under pressure to justify a war that the administration had already decided on.

In the days after September 11, Mr. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, mounted an attempt to include Iraq in the war against terror. When the established agencies came up with nothing concrete to link Iraq and al-Qaida, the OSP was given the task of looking more carefully.

The president's most trusted adviser, Mr. Cheney, was at the shadow network's sharp end. He made several trips to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, to demand a more "forward-leaning" interpretation of the threat posed by Saddam. When he was not there to make his influence felt, his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was. Such hands-on involvement in the processing of intelligence data was unprecedented for a vice-president in recent times, and it put pressure on CIA officials to come up with the appropriate results.

Another frequent visitor was Newt Gingrich, the former Republican party leader who resurfaced after September 11 as a Pentagon "consultant" and a member of its unpaid defense advisory board, with influence far beyond his official title. Mr. Gingrich gained access to the CIA headquarters and was listened to because he was seen as a personal emissary of the Pentagon and, in particular, of the OSP.
Under pressure from the hawks such as Mr. Cheney and Mr. Gingrich, those [OSP] officers became reluctant to discard anything, no matter how far-fetched. The OSP also sucked in countless tips from the Iraqi National Congress and other opposition groups, which were viewed with far more skepticism by the CIA and the state department.

"They surveyed data and picked out what they liked," said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department's intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. "The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defense had this huge defense intelligence agency, and he went around it."

In fact, the OSP's activities were a complete mystery to the CIA and the Pentagon.

"The iceberg analogy is a good one," said a senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war. "No one from the military staff heard, saw or discussed anything with them."

Source: The Guardian (UK) - July 17, 2003 -- "The spies who pushed for war" by Julian Borger This article is full of interesting information about the Bush intelligence operation. Read more at The Guardian web site.



A Web of Misinformation and Deceit

The Bush administration used the 9/11 catastrophe in a cynical ploy to justify an invasion of Iraq that it had probably decided on before the 9/11 attack even occurred.

In January 2003, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times. Commenting on Iraqs WMD declaration, she referred to the claim that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear materials from Niger, by saying "The declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad."
Source Time -- July 21, 2003 --"A Question Of Trust" by Michael Duffy and James Carney



It is now widely agreed that the documents alleging this transaction were forgeries. It is also widely believed that the Bush administration new the documents had been discredited before the war started. Rice's op-ed piece was ironically titled "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying" (Now we know who is lying!)



From the State Of The Union speech - January 28, 2003:
Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

[In addition, claims were made by Bush administration officials that Iraq possessed a fleet of mobile-weapons labs. Claims were also made that Saddam had the capacity to deploy WMD within 45 minutes.]



6/03/03 Lt. Gen. James Conway: "We were simply wrong…It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered [nuclear, chemical or biological] weapons [in Iraq.] …believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwait border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there."
Source: LA Times 6/03/03 via Dean For America website



"Coalition" forces have been searching Iraq since March 2003 for weapons of mass destruction. So far, none have been found. No WMDs were used by the Iraqi forces during the invasion.




An Australian journalist discovered videotaped remarks made by [Secretary of State] Mr. [Colin] Powell during a Feb. 24, 2001, press conference in Cairo. He told Egyptian reporters that the international sanctions against Iraq had worked, assuring them that Saddam Hussein had not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
Source: "Where oh where are those W.M.D.? Hand-picked Bush inspection team comes up empty-handed" -- Joe Conason - The New York Observer - 10/10/03



More from the State Of The Union speech - January 28, 2003:
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.



So far, no credible links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been established.

Contrary to popular belief fostered by White House misinformation, the 9/11 hijackers were not Iraqi, nor were they sponsored by Iraq. Most of the hijackers were of Saudi origin. Censored elements of a Congressional study probably indicate that they were also supported financially by elements linked to Saudi Arabia.



Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorist's strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday [Sept 6, 2003] said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Mr. Hussein was involved. The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
Source: Dallas Morning News -- "Poll says many think Hussein behind 9-11 attacks" -- 9/7/03



A Historical Perspective

Our government has a history of exaggerating danger in order to justify military excursions. The entire "cold war" was an exaggeration of the Soviet threat that resulted in billions of dollars invested in defense. Currently the Bush administration proposes to waste millions on the Strategic Defense Initiative (better known as "Star Wars") in a futile attempt to prevent a missile attack against the U.S. The entire Viet Nam episode was an example of a non-existent threat referred to at that time as the "domino theory." The "war on drugs" is another example of an exaggerated threat used to prop up countless military and CIA operations in South and Central America, such as the Contras in Nicaragua.

Conclusion
As it turns out, Michael Moore was right when he spoke at the Academy Awards and said "We have a President who won a fictitious election taking us to war for fictitious reasons."



If Iraq never posed a threat to the United States, then the question remains: Why did we invade Iraq? Power? Money?

The reasons for the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with national security.

One reason for the invasion was to distract the American people from Bush's abysmal domestic record. As the shock of 9/11 began to fade, the nation began to return its attention to the domestic economy. The news cycle was shifting its attention away from domestic terrorism and back onto stories about job losses, government deficits, corporate CEO salaries and Enron, mortgage defaults, record high gasoline prices, etc. The Bush team knew that if the news cycle was filled with those stories until the 2004 election, its chances to retain the White House were doomed. It had to act.

Another reason was to provide Republican supporters in the defense industry and oil company suppliers (particularly those run by Vice President Cheney) with lucrative no-bid contracts. The administration is making plans to borrow huge sums of money on the behalf of the Iraqi people using future oil revenues as collateral, and to funnel that money into US corporations in the form of reconstruction contracts. These defense contractors as well as contractors that supply ancillary services to the military are run by exploiters of the revolving door between government and industry. Their boards of directors are populated by executives from Republican administrations dating back to the Nixon days. Many of these companies have been convicted or have settled suits with the federal government pertaining to Enron type accounting tricks as well as overcharges to the government and bribing of foreign officials. An analysis of where the money for the Iraq invasion goes clearly reveals that the Bush administration started an unprovoked war in order to generate contracts for his campaign contributors.

If it was reasonable to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual incident, then it is reasonable to impeach President Bush for lying to justify a war in order to distract people from his abysmal domestic record and to enrich his political supporters.


Read what others have said about this statement here.
Use the section at the bottom of the screen to submit your own comment.
Comments Contributor Date Submitted
Next will be Iran, prepare for more lies! Ferre
Amsterdam, Netherlands
10/10/2004
Yes, Bush and his "folks" did lie. And they keep lying. Bush would never admit that he invaded Iraq to get those who threatened his daddy. If he wanted to invade someone who had ties to al-Queda, why didn't he invade Saudi Arabia? After all, most of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudis. Because Bush is too close to the royal family there? Linda
Denton
10/13/2004
I have a solution for this entire mess in Iraq. Drop a nuke on Baghdad. Yes thats right a nuke! Now you ask why? If we nuke Baghdad and other cities in Iraq we will kill all the terrorists AND at the same time prove that Iraq had WMDs all along. We could just say the terrorists were trying to use the nukes on U.S. troops but of course we new about it and got our troops out in time. Blue Max
10/19/2005
Max, perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

The terrorists that committed the 9/11 attack came (mostly) from Saudi Arabia. They were financed by Osama Bin Laden, who was being harbored by the Afghan government which at that time was run by the Taliban. Neither the terrorists nor their backers were Iraqi.

Also, in case you are the only person who hasn't gotten the memo yet, there were no WMDs in Iraq after all. The whole thing was just a big mistake...ooops!

So, explain to me one more time...why do you want to destroy Iraq???
Webmaster
SpinShield
10/20/2005
Damn right he lied humm, 9 of the so called highjackers are still alive and have come forward to show there faces. Bush put us in wars in two countries with no credable evidence. What was the reason for "Operation Iraq Liberation" O.I.L. funny how they just throw it in our face robert tollison
broken bow, ok
3/26/2009

Submit your comment below
Contributor
(optional)

Location
(optional)

Date
Submitted

3/29/2024

Use your browsers BACK button to return to the Iraq list .