Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[Bill_Sykes]

In the Brittish elections, a top secret memo was leaked that clearly establishs that Bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq and that facts and intellgence was fixed to justify the plan invasion of Iraq. Despite the fact that Bush has denied that the decision to go to war was made in 2002, this memo clearly established that Bush had made the decision to invade Iraq in the summer of 2002 and that the facts and intelligence was to be fixed to justify this decision. British memo indicates Bush made intelligence fit Iraq policy

WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of 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, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made 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," weapons of mass destruction.

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

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

A former senior U.S. official called it "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 "there are no plans to attack Iraq 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 reported he said.

Some former intelligence operatives have ceased on this memo as proof that Bush fixed the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. Proof Bush Fixed the Facts

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and whiteand beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity....

Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documentsthis time authentic, not forged. Whether prompted by the open appeal of the international Truth-Telling Coalition or not, some brave soul has made the most explosive "patriotic leak" of the war by giving London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which immortalizes a discussion that is chillingly amoral. Apparently no one felt free to ask the obvious questions. Or, worse still, the obvious questions did not occur.

Juggernaut Before The Horse

In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." Period. What about the intelligence? Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin." Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

In the following months, "the case" would be buttressed by a well-honed U.S.-U.K. intelligence-turned-propaganda-machine. The argument would be made "solid" enough to win endorsement from Congress and Parliament by conjuring up:

Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related; Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa; Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories; Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so; Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure. All this, as Dearlove notes dryly, despite the fact that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Another nugget from Dearlove's briefing is his bloodless comment that one of the U.S. military options under discussion involved "a continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli"the clear implication being that planners of the air campaign would also see to it that an appropriate casus belli was orchestrated.

The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there. O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to "take out" Saddam. Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb. Again, neither O'Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions. Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth.

There is more out there but it is clear that this memo is real. Tony Blair's party lost 50 seats in the election in large part due to the disclosure of this memo. If the memo was faked, Blair would had denied it during the election.

This information is consistent with the testimony of Richard Clark and former Treasury Sec. Paul O'Neill, both of whom were parties to meetings where it was clear that the decision had been already made to invade Iraq long before 2003.

My question for Bush supporters, is that is there any further proof that you require? Are you now willing to admit that Bush lied to you about the reasons for the war in Iraq? How much evidence do you need to prove to you that you have been lied to? It may well be that there is no amount of evidence that is sufficient to prove to some Bush supporters that Bush lied and that is sad.

 

[Microcell]

He said irregardless of whether there were WMD in IRAQ Saddam is a threat to our safety and well being, as he is deceptive and not allowing unfettered access to the UN team assigned to look into WMD. Was the entire world that agreed that there were WMD, even your Liberal senators in on it? When they authorized war they must have been in on it too.


In other words to make it exactly clear, there were actually other reasons for war. It seems there were no WMD's but we didn't know because Saddam wouldn't let us look. Don't you believe that or is the UN playing good cop and in on it too?

Get real.

 

[Bill_Sykes]

He said irregardless of whether there were WMD in IRAQ Saddam is a threat to our safety and well being, as he is deceptive and not allowing unfettered access to the UN team assigned to look into WMD. Was the entire world that agreed that there were WMD, even your Liberal senators in on it? When they authorized war they must have been in on it too.


In other words to make it exactly clear, there were actually other reasons for war. It seems there were no WMD's but we didn't know because Saddam wouldn't let us look. Don't you believe that or is the UN playing good cop and in on it too?

Get real.

I hate to break it to you but Saddam was letting us look. Do you remember Hans Blix? Saddam was cooperating with the UN inspectors. I am glad to bury you with links and stories about the inspection effort and the fact that it worked but for you the Nile is not just a river in egypt.

 

[Lebjwb]

Bush Began to Plan War Three Months After 9/11
Book Says President Called Secrecy Vital

By William Hamilton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 17, 2004; Page A01

Beginning in late December 2001, President Bush met repeatedly with Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks and his war cabinet to plan the U.S. attack on Iraq even as he and administration spokesmen insisted they were pursuing a diplomatic solution, according to a new book on the origins of the war.

The intensive war planning throughout 2002 created its own momentum, according to "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward, fueled in part by the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein could not be removed from power except through a war and CIA Director George J. Tenet's assurance to the president that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

 

[Lebjwb]

He said irregardless of whether there were WMD in IRAQ Saddam is a threat to our safety and well being, as he is deceptive and not allowing unfettered access to the UN team assigned to look into WMD. Was the entire world that agreed that there were WMD, even your Liberal senators in on it? When they authorized war they must have been in on it too.


In other words to make it exactly clear, there were actually other reasons for war. It seems there were no WMD's but we didn't know because Saddam wouldn't let us look. Don't you believe that or is the UN playing good cop and in on it too?

Get real.

"Irregardless" is not a word.

 

[OceanAnnie]

---the Nile is not just a river in egypt.

That's "D Nile". (Couldn't resist.)

 

[Bill_Sykes]

Microcell

Here is a nice artcle on the fact that Hans Blix and the UN inspection teams were right and Bush was wrong. We Had Good Intel—The U.N.'s

Feb. 9 issue - "We were all wrong," says weapons inspector David Kay. Actually, no. There was one group whose prewar estimates of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities have turned out to be devastatingly close to reality—the U.N. inspectors. Consider what Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear agency, told the Security Council on March 7, 2003, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites: "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities ... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites." He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997 and its dual-use industrial plants had decayed. All these claims appear to be dead-on, based on Kay's findings.

Regarding chemical and biological weapons, the U.N. inspectors headed by Hans Blix conducted 731 inspections between November 2002 and March 2003. Despite claims by the U.S. government of the existence of specific stockpiles of weapons and active weapons programs, they found no evidence of either. In his reports to the Security Council, Blix was always judicious. "One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist," he said. "However, that possibility is also not excluded."....

Why were the inspectors right and the administration wrong? Partly this has to do with political pressure. The CIA had been battered for 30 years by accusations from the right that it was soft on the Soviets, soft on the Chinese and most recently soft on Saddam. (Never mind that in almost every case, the agency was more accurate in its assessments than its neoconservative accusers. It lost the political battle.) The U.N. inspectors could actually make their assessments without fear. (Some in the administration did try to scare them. "We will not hesitate to discredit you," Vice President Cheney said to Blix before he began his job.)

More important, the inspectors were actually there on the ground and the American government was not. Some reports suggest that the United States did not have a single credible informant in Iraq before the war. The inspectors, on the other hand, were talking to scientists, engineers and bureaucrats for months. Yes, the officials were often trying to deceive them. But the inspectors were also picking up information along the way. We now all agree that the key missing ingredient in Iraq was human intelligence. Well, the inspectors were human intelligence. They were far more accurate, as it turned out, than billions of dollars of satellite and audio technologies. "What inspectors can often most valuably assess is not just the capabilities of the regime but its character and intentions," explains George Perkovitch, a leading nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment.

Again, contrary to your assertion, Saddam was letting the UN look for his missing WMDs and the UN was correct.

The Brittish memo provides the critical missing piece. It shows that Bush and Blair had instructed the intelligence community to fix the facts and the intelligence to justify the war. Unfortuanelty, the UN was not in on this fix and kept reporting the truth.

Bush lied and thousands died. The facts were fixed to support the war in Iraq and if anyone dare told the truth such as Hans Blix, they were vilified by Bush and company. Your position is wrong and you need to open your eyes to the fact that Bush lied.

 

[Lebjwb]

He said irregardless of whether there were WMD in IRAQ Saddam is a threat to our safety and well being, as he is deceptive and not allowing unfettered access to the UN team assigned to look into WMD. Was the entire world that agreed that there were WMD, even your Liberal senators in on it? When they authorized war they must have been in on it too.


In other words to make it exactly clear, there were actually other reasons for war. It seems there were no WMD's but we didn't know because Saddam wouldn't let us look. Don't you believe that or is the UN playing good cop and in on it too?

Get real.

Ahh.. the watered down version. First it was "there are WMD's" then when that turned out to be false, it was "they had the intention of making WMD's"

Well here's a fact; The Bu$h administration is either a pack of liars or a pack of imbeciles. Because of this thousands have been slaughtered.

Bu$h doesn't have the guts to take responsibility for his own administration.

 

[Bill_Sykes]

Here is a letter that he has sent to Bush that has been signed by 88 members of Congress. Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

* A British official "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."​

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Members who have already signed letter....

It has been clear from some time that Bush lied about the reasons for the war in Iraq. WMDs were not reason for the invasion of Iraq. The fact that we have some hard proof of the fact that Bush lied is helpful. However, none of the hard core bush supporters will care. They simply can not accept the fact that Bush is a liar.

 

[Setianarchist]

I just read this story, and was dumbfounded. I mean me... the most cynical, anti-conservative man around and I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Yet, sure enough, take a look at this on the House of Representatives website:

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf

I'd love to see GOP apologizers worm their way out of this. The sad thing is that I probably will see just that...

 

[tiggersmom2]

"Irregardless" is not a word.

I agree with you again Lebby.....it is not a word, regardless is the word and when you put the prefix Ir...it becomes redundant. However, I don't agree with anything else...Saddam was an evil dictator and I am glad he is gone.

 

[Setianarchist]

I agree with you again Lebby.....it is not a word, regardless is the word and when you put the prefix Ir...it becomes redundant. However, I don't agree with anything else...Saddam was an evil dictator and I am glad he is gone.

Irregardless

You don't agree with what?

Fact? Why, because it is inconvenient? You know, I don't know what I was thinking... 50% of the population isn't going to give a rat's *** about this anyway, because the methodology applied here is right up their alley: Take a stance and then try to justify it. We see it with creationists, we see it with jingoists, and the fact that people could honestly dismiss this as a triviality speaks volumes about the integrity of much of the American people.

 

[tiggersmom2]

Irregardless

You don't agree with what?

Fact? Why, because it is inconvenient? You know, I don't know what I was thinking... 50% of the population isn't going to give a rat's *** about this anyway, because the methodology applied here is right up their alley: Take a stance and then try to justify it. We see it with creationists, we see it with jingoists, and the fact that people could honestly dismiss this as a triviality speaks volumes about the integrity of much of the American people.

You obvioulsy are not schooled in English. Irregardless is "horrible english" it is redundant and should not be used. As for the rest of your drivel....uh , you must be enjoying your night with libations or something else b/c you make no sense.

 

[Setianarchist]

You obvioulsy are not schooled in English. Irregardless is "horrible english" it is redundant and should not be used. As for the rest of your drivel....uh , you must be enjoying your night with libations or something else b/c you make no sense.

"Horrible English" does not mean that it isn't a "word."

As for the rest of my post, well, I realize that I'm not schooled in English, so my grammar and syntax may not be up to snuff, so I'll try and spell it out as simply as I can:

You said, and I quote "Saddam was an evil dictator and I am glad he is gone." What, pray tell, does that have to do with the issue at hand, if not an insinuation that the end (his removal) is justified by the means (in this case, apparent manipulation and dishonesty)? Hypothetically, if the story as reported stands true, will it affect your viewpoint regarding the legitimacy of the justification for the Iraq war?

 

[Lebjwb]

Irregardless

You don't agree with what?

Fact? Why, because it is inconvenient? You know, I don't know what I was thinking... 50% of the population isn't going to give a rat's *** about this anyway, because the methodology applied here is right up their alley: Take a stance and then try to justify it. We see it with creationists, we see it with jingoists, and the fact that people could honestly dismiss this as a triviality speaks volumes about the integrity of much of the American people.

They can't admit that Bu$h and company have been lying to them because then they'd have to acknowledge that they've been duped,used,suckered and that of course would bring into question their intelligence.

Thus the dead horse gets flogged in the face of hard facts.

It's like trying to get a drunk to admit they are an alcoholic.

But hell even Bu$h did that.

 

[Setianarchist]

He said irregardless of whether there were WMD in IRAQ Saddam is a threat to our safety and well being, as he is deceptive and not allowing unfettered access to the UN team assigned to look into WMD. Was the entire world that agreed that there were WMD, even your Liberal senators in on it? When they authorized war they must have been in on it too.

A) As it has been duly demonstrated, comprehensive access was granted, and the evidence was nonexistant. I suppose that in retrospect, this makes perfect sense, considering that there was nothing to find.

B) Hypothetically, what is so morally reprehensible about a third-world thug using deception to protect his hide that is not as such when the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet utilizes it to fabricate justification for an aggressive war that has left the blood of thousands of innocent civilians soaking the soil?

 

[Setianarchist]

They can't admit that Bu$h and company have been lying to them because then they'd have to acknowledge that they've been duped,used,suckered and that of course would bring into question their intelligence.

Thus the dead horse gets flogged in the face of hard facts.

It's like trying to get a drunk to admit they are an alcoholic.

But hell even Bu$h did that.

You're absolutely right, but unfortunately, I think it's a little worse than that: I actually think that many of them are to the point that they don't really care whether they're being mislead so long as the end result is their desired one. In other words, they give their full consent to the powers that be to take "whatever action necessary" to accomplish what they see fit. That sort of nationalistic leader-worship used to be reserved for goose-steppers.

 

[Lebjwb]

You obvioulsy are not schooled in English. Irregardless is "horrible english" it is redundant and should not be used. As for the rest of your drivel....uh , you must be enjoying your night with libations or something else b/c you make no sense.

How is it drivel? Make a statement of fact to refute the article if you can.

 

[Lebjwb]

You're absolutely right, but unfortunately, I think it's a little worse than that: I actually think that many of them are to the point that they don't really care whether they're being mislead so long as the end result is their desired one. In other words, they give their full consent to the powers that be to take "whatever action necessary" to accomplish what they see fit. That sort of nationalistic leader-worship used to be reserved for goose-steppers.

But it's patriotic to follow Heir Bu$h without question.

 

[Setianarchist]

But it's patriotic to follow Heir Bu$h without question.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
--Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
--Bertrand Russell

Aye. As someone who deeply loves the principles that this nation was supposedly founded upon, I find it incredibly tragic that 'patriotism' is now practically synonymous with egotistical ethnocentrism.