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

[Setianarchist]

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.

How, precisely, do you declare 'war on global terrorism?' Is it anything like declaring a 'war on drugs,' or a 'war on poverty?' It's little more than a blanket term to give a degree of perceived righteousness to military action, but that's a different issue.

2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.

Now, [i}this[/i] is indeed interesting, considering that the 9/11 Commission report and pretty much any source worth a damn has proven time and time again that the link between Saddam and al Qaeda was inconsequential and the one between him and the attacks on 9/11 especially were imagined. Yet, polls continue to show us that almost half of Americans still believe that there was a connection... before now, I'd yet to meet one. Thank you very much for this... enlightening experience.

Oh! Oh! Unless, of course, you're just insinuating that since we were attacked by some rogue group, we have leeway to attack whoever the hell we want just because they make us insecure.

3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.

In a civilized (or sane) world, you don't launch pre-emptive war on possibilities, and no, no, there was absolutely no evidence that he had them. In fact, this memo goes as far as to say that any evidence was completely fabricated to give justification for what was already planned.

4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission.

That's you're opinion. My opinion is that if there was any reason in this world besides our imminent danger that was enough for you to support pre-emptive war against a bankrupt third world nation, then that makes you a abject militarist dreaming of the neocons' Pax Americana. Opinions are fun.

5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.

That's utterly fallacious: The burden of proof is on those who believe that we need to perpetuate such an endless war in the first place, which is why Bush and company had to fabricate justifications in the first place. What you said is comparable to me saying that the burden of proof is on you to show me why I didn't have to burn down that abandoned house next door to kill some roaches.

SECONDLY-
The very same people who are whining so loudly about THIS mission are the SAME ones who have completely marginalized by their PREVIOUS statements on Iraq
1) During the Gulf War - they were AGAINST our involvement even though we DID have the approval of the UN and an alliance of over 100 nations.

Once again, it's logically fallacious to draw a correlation between this and the issue at hand.

2) Then they wanted us to end the Gulf War early because we were "shooting fish in a barrel"

And? This has what to do with the topic? We live in a civilized world, not a preschool playground.

3) After the war, they whined that we didn't go far ENOUGH and remove Saddam - even though what we did was EXACTLY what the UN objective was - and that to invade Baghdad at that time would have been even more costly in terms of lives - because the entire citizenry would have been involved in the resistance
4) They CELEBRATED our involvement in Bosnia - a country that had 'never invaded us' - and a mission that had NO support by the UN.
THEREFORE -
the people who are whining so loudly about Iraq in 2003 are just ignorant of military strategy - are hypocritical in their own opposition - are are just plain searching for factoids to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

THANK GOD for president BUSH and Prime Minister BLAIR

Well, this is a disgusting, festering red herring: You're quick to denounce the rest of the world for what you perceive as problems, completely diverting the issue from the one at hand. Assuming that the purpose of the UN is something other than to... say... keep peace, I'd like you to tell us whether it was morally treacherous to fabricate reasons for war to gain the support of much of the population based on falsehoods. That's all this topic is really about.

 

[Setianarchist]

Very well said. I too thank God for Bush and Blair.

(We await the perfect plan that the critics must have somewhere.)

It's not the job of the 'critic' or dissent to have an alternative "perfect plan:" That's the job of our elected officials... that's really, what we elect them for. Therefore, when their actions are revealed to be inefficient or inappropriate, then it is also our duty to remove them from power and replace them with more competent public servants.

 

[wvrevy]

I love it...Confronted with growing mounds of evidence about the lies of Bush and his cronies, the best defense the right can come up with is "nuh uh"

Here are a few irrefutable facts:

1 - Saddam had no weapons of mass distruction. We were told before the war that he did, and in no uncertain terms. We weren't told he might have them or that he wanted to make them, we were told he had them. Period. This, we now know, was an absolute lie.

2 - Global terrorism is at an all-time high. Confronted with this fact, Shrub's government has continued to say we are "winning the war on terrorism." This, as should be obvious from the resulting rise in terrorism, is now known to be a lie.

3 - When the WMD argument fell away, the Shrub sheep all started bah'ing about "humanitarian" reasons for going into Iraq. This would be fine - noble, even - if it weren't for the fact that we are currently ignoring an ongoing genocide elsewhere in the world. This should come as no surprise to any rational person, but the humanitarian excuse is just another LIE.

4 - Senior intelligence officials have said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies have undergone a significant shift in philosophy under the Shrub regime. Rather than reporting intel as it comes in, with opinion on it's meaning only secondary, the intel is now being molded to fit whatever political stance the white house now wants to justify. This, say the experts, is extremely dangerous, as it can lead to false assumptions being given credence by taking intel out of context. Kinda like seeing a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the US" and saying that it is merely "historical data".

5 - The White House endorses torture, both at home and abroad. With hundreds of prisoner abuse investigations and well over a hundred military personnel "punished" (though, none very high ranking, save one reserve general who was demoted a rank), it is evident to anyone not wearing partisan blinders that there is a system of abuse in our prisoner handling system. This was worsened further when Alberto Gonzales was appointed to higher office after writing the "torture memo", endorsing the exact acts that the Abu Ghraib prison guards are being tried and imprisoned for.

6 - No high ranking official in the Shrub administration has been held accountable for the abysmal failures in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or in intelligence gathering. When Shrub blathers on about accountability, you can therefore be absolutely certain that he is speaking of everybody except he and his cronies.

7 - FACT: Iraq had neither the weapons themselves, nor the capability to easily make them. North Korea has both. The difference ? North Korea has no oil, while Iraq has one of the world's largest reserves.

8 - Price at the pump: $2.30 and rising. When asked, during the first election in 2000, what he would do to combat rising oil prices, Shrub said he would confront OPEC directly and, "tell them to open up the pumps." Instead, he's seen holding hands with the Saudis (literally and figuratively) while prices climb to record highs.

I honestly don't see how it is possible for anyone to support the Shrub regime without completely ignoring the facts. You can spin all you want, but the facts are there for anyone willing to actually look at them.

 

[Charade]

It's not the job of the 'critic' or dissent to have an alternative "perfect plan:" That's the job of our elected officials... that's really, what we elect them for. Therefore, when their actions are revealed to be inefficient or inappropriate, then it is also our duty to remove them from power and replace them with more competent public servants.

I can see how one would advocate for removal of elected officials because of perceived ineffectiveness or incompetence but how can you do this if the people you want to replace the current administration with don't have an alternative and better plan?

Is it the "Anyone but Bush" plan?

That's not a plan that I'd likely buy in to.

 

[Setianarchist]

I can see how one would advocate for removal of elected officials because of perceived ineffectiveness or incompetence but how can you do this if the people you want to replace the current administration with don't have an alternative and better plan?

Is it the "Anyone but Bush" plan?

That's not a plan that I'd likely buy in to.

When I vote, I don't vote based on a candidate's declaration that "I won't fabricate evidence in order to drag us into a senseless war." Today, that's just something that I'd take for granted.

After the fact, however, to say that one of the criteria with which we should judge a candidate is how they respond to the problems created by the previous administration is like picking me to stay nearby to stop the bleeding since I'm most well-acquainted with the stab wound I just gave you.

 

[Charade]

I notice that no one has yet posted anything to refute the lies from the Bu$h administration.

Unfortunately, most of us here are not privy to top secret documents so other than us saying we don't believe it, how are we to refute anything?

And isn't it interesting that this memo appeared days before the British elections? Doesn't that tactic ring a bell? Doesn't mean it's a lie or a forgery but it does make it highly suspicious imo.

If I read the article that Mr. Non Partisan posted correctly, the only keys points are

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

Is this a direct quote from the memo or just someone's summation?

So what if they planned the Iraq invasion before he asked Congress for permission? Would you really want Bush to publicly admit that they plan to attack Iraq but not be ready for it?

If you believed that Bush lied, then you'd have to believe that many many many (too many) others lied as well and many many many people remained silent and complacent.

It's come down to this; members of this administration have to check before they get off the plane in foreign countries to see if they will be arrested as war criminals.

link?

 

[Charade]

When I vote, I don't vote based on a candidate's declaration that "I won't fabricate evidence in order to drag us into a senseless war." Today, that's just something that I'd take for granted.

I agree.

After the fact, however, to say that one of the criteria with which we should judge a candidate is how they respond to the problems created by the previous administration is like picking me to stay nearby to stop the bleeding since I'm most well-acquainted with the stab wound I just gave you.

What would you prefer your candidate to do? Ignore the problems created by the previous administration?

Generally, a candidate running against the incumbent uses the "problems" created (or unresolved) by the incumbent in their platform and offers a plan to correct the problems. That's usually how they get people to vote for them.

You'll never hear one say "While So&so is doing a great job, I think I can do better".

 

[Lebjwb]

And isn't it interesting that this memo appeared days before the British elections? Doesn't that tactic ring a bell? Doesn't mean it's a lie or a forgery but it does make it highly suspicious imo.

If I read the article that Mr. Non Partisan posted correctly, the only keys points are



Is this a direct quote from the memo or just someone's summation?

So what if they planned the Iraq invasion before he asked Congress for permission? Would you really want Bush to publicly admit that they plan to attack Iraq but not be ready for it?

If you believed that Bush lied, then you'd have to believe that many many many (too many) others lied as well and many many many people remained silent and complacent.

Unfortunately, most of us here are not privy to top secret documents so other than us saying we don't believe it, how are we to refute anything?

Why don't you believe it? You seem to believe Bu$h at his word on everything else. Do members of his administration brief you on a daily basis?







link?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0204-21.htm

Published on Friday, February 4, 2005 by the Toronto Star
Rumsfeld Fears War Crimes Charges in Germany
Abu Ghraib-related; Tried to Resign Twice

by Tim Harper

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld conceded yesterday that fears he could be charged as a war criminal may keep him from a conference in Germany set for next week.
A lawsuit filed by the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights with German prosecutors accuses Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials with war crimes for their part in the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal.

Until Rumsfeld was asked about the possibility at a news briefing, the Pentagon had maintained it was merely a scheduling conflict which could prevent him from attending the Munich Conference on Security Policy, an annual event which draws top defense officials from all over the world.

German law allows charges to be laid in war crimes and human rights cases regardless of the nationality of the accused, but because the United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court, charges cannot be laid in this country.

"It's something that we have to take into consideration,'' Rumsfeld said.

"Whether I end up there we'll soon know. It'll be a week and we'll find out.''

The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a complaint last Nov. 30 naming 10 U.S. officials, including Rumsfeld.

This week, they added the name of newly minted Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales to the complaint.

The Center has won important legal challenges on the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and has also filed suit against former attorney-general John Ashcroft for his role in the arrest and detention in Syria of Canadian Maher Arar.

Center president Michael Ratner said Rumsfeld's threats not to attend the conference are merely a bid to bully the Germans into dropping the case.

"We believe that Donald Rumsfeld cannot escape accountability for his alleged crimes," he said.

Last night, on CNN's Larry King Live, Rumsfeld revealed that he twice offered his resignation to U.S. President George W. Bush when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke last spring.

"I told him he ought to make the decision as to whether or not I should stay on," Bush said. "He did make that decision and he did want me to stay on.'

© 2005 Toronto Star

###

 

[Tiziminchac]

I know I'm going to be sorry for ever posting on this thread. I have my opinons and others have theirs. But the following kinda jumped out at me. It's concerns WMD.

In a civilized (or sane) world, you don't launch pre-emptive war on possibilities, and no, no, there was absolutely no evidence that he had them. In fact, this memo goes as far as to say that any evidence was completely fabricated to give justification for what was already planned.

Well I may be wrong, afterall I'm just a dumb Florida boy, but didn't Saddam kill countless Kurds with these weapons? Wouldn't that be proof he had them? Why didn't Saddam go to the media before we (the U.S.) attacked his nation and say "Here's the proof I have no WMD! I destroyed them all! Here's the proof!" Bush's argument that the Saddam regime had WMDs would have been mute. I've never seen any proof of the destruction of these WMD. No video, nothing. Maybe I missed it, or maybe Saddam used his entire arsenal of WMD on his own population and that's why we found none.

 

[Puffy2]

but didn't Saddam kill countless Kurds with these weapons?

Yes, and why didn't the Republican Administration in charge here in the US do anything WHEN IT HAPPENED?...

Just like now, in the Sudan - as thousands are slaughtered - our government sits around talking about it. IF we are motivated to go to war for humanitarian reasons, then GO for humanitarian reasons - like when it's actually happening, so something can actually be done before all the innocents are butchered. Going years after the fact, and claiming it's for "humanitarian reasons" is such BS.

 

[ThAnswr]

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.

Get real yourself. The entire world did not agree with the WMD claims. The State Department's Intelligence group did not agree as did parts of the DIA, the CIA, and IAEI.

 

[Teejay32]

2 - Global terrorism is at an all-time high. Confronted with this fact, Shrub's government has continued to say we are "winning the war on terrorism." This, as should be obvious from the resulting rise in terrorism, is now known to be a lie.

You're not the first person to cite this, I've seen it a few times... it's statistical evidence that I haven't explored too much, but I'm willing to bet it includes something like "war in Iraq (or the war on terror) contributed to a greater number of terrorist attacks against the US." And/or foreign troops. Because otherwise it's hard to see how 2005 or 2004 was far more dangerous for global citizens than any other year. As a point of fact, it lacks something; as a statistic, it's not one I'm worried about...why bother "confronting with this fact?" I have no idea what the point of it is.

 

[ThAnswr]

"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?

There's a little bit more than just the means of "apparent manipulation and dishonesty". Add to those means 1595 dead Americans, 12245 wounded, and hundred of billions of American taxpayer dollars.

 

[ThAnswr]

I can see how one would advocate for removal of elected officials because of perceived ineffectiveness or incompetence but how can you do this if the people you want to replace the current administration with don't have an alternative and better plan?

Is it the "Anyone but Bush" plan?

That's not a plan that I'd likely buy in to.

The Consititution says we can remove a president if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" and does not have the caveat "only if someone else has a better plan". This is a bogus argument.

If this president's lying over WMD's, Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda, and how this war was conducted, isn't "high crimes and misdemeanors", what the hell is.

George Bush should be impreached and would be impeached if there were true patriots among the Republicans and not just flag-waving sloganeers.

 

[ThAnswr]

Well, since he's been reelected, how could X million Brits be so dumb?

Tony Blair was not re-elected. FYI, he wasn't elected in the first place.

The Labour party was re-elected as they were the first time around. If Tony Blair had been running as does an American president, he would've lost and lost big. But, the British despise Tony Blair, but they like his parties ideals. That's why Labour won.

And just as an aside, when is a victory damn near a defeat...........when you lose 50 seats in Parliament as did the Labour party.

 

[ThAnswr]

I know I'm going to be sorry for ever posting on this thread. I have my opinons and others have theirs. But the following kinda jumped out at me. It's concerns WMD.
Well I may be wrong, afterall I'm just a dumb Florida boy, but didn't Saddam kill countless Kurds with these weapons? Wouldn't that be proof he had them? Why didn't Saddam go to the media before we (the U.S.) attacked his nation and say "Here's the proof I have no WMD! I destroyed them all! Here's the proof!" Bush's argument that the Saddam regime had WMDs would have been mute. I've never seen any proof of the destruction of these WMD. No video, nothing. Maybe I missed it, or maybe Saddam used his entire arsenal of WMD on his own population and that's why we found none.

If the use of gas against the Kurds (and the Iranians before them) justifies war, well then you're about 20 years too late.

And as far as I know, and maybe some of the Bushies have evidence to the contrary and would be more than happy to share it, none of these WMD's was used after the real Gulf War (1991).

 

[Tiziminchac]

Yes, and why didn't the Republican Administration in charge here in the US do anything WHEN IT HAPPENED?...

Just like now, in the Sudan - as thousands are slaughtered - our government sits around talking about it. IF we are motivated to go to war for humanitarian reasons, then GO for humanitarian reasons - like when it's actually happening, so something can actually be done before all the innocents are butchered. Going years after the fact, and claiming it's for "humanitarian reasons" is such BS.

If the use of gas against the Kurds (and the Iranians before them) justifies war, well then you're about 20 years too late.

And as far as I know, and maybe some of the Bushies have evidence to the contrary and would be more than happy to share it, none of these WMD's was used after the real Gulf War (1991).

I feel as if both of you missed my point. Which is only that Iraq did indeed have WMD. And the evidence was that he had used them previously. The poster that I quoted said "no, no, there was absolutely no evidence that he had them." Where is the evidence they were destroyed?

 

[Rokkitsci]

Actually, strategy in the war on terror is entirely debatable (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I personally don't remember Bush saying that was one of the major reasons for invading Iraq before we went to war). But it seems to me that, in other words, it doesn't matter to you whether Bush lied about WMDs or not. I'll even add it to my previous post: if Bush had only said Saddam is an evil dictator, we'll take him out and there is no other "reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq", we STILL wouldn't have this thread to debate about it.

Bush knew that for the US population to support an Iraq invasion we would have to feel threatened by the government of Iraq.
Nope, not me. Try generalizing a lot less, and your long-winded posts might actually support your claims.

I appreciate the tone of your responses even though I disagree with most of your opinions.
In defense of my "long windedness" I usually try to give my REASONS for my opinions along wiht the opinion.
But - to be brief in this one - military strategy is not something you put out for public knowledge. You especially don't advertise what your final goal is. You certainly don't want your enemies to know every facet of your decisoion making process. You don't expect your political opponenets to be your cheerleaders.
But - n time of war - I believe you SHOULD be able to expect your political opposition to not SIDE WITH THE ENEMY. Sadly, the democrats have abandoned this common expectation - hence the acrimony I have with them.
Democrats are perfectily entitled to offer differing views on how to fight terrorism - but they do NOT have the right to just OBSTRUCT any effort that Bush tries with the hope of crippling him.
That is the difference - honest differences on how to best DEFEAT the enemy is welcomed. Political crassness in ASSISTING the enemy is not.

 

[Charade]

The Constitution says we can remove a president if he commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" and does not have the caveat "only if someone else has a better plan". This is a bogus argument.

If this president's lying over WMD's, Iraq's ties to Al-Qaeda, and how this war was conducted, isn't "high crimes and misdemeanors", what the hell is.

George Bush should be impeached and would be impeached if there were true patriots among the Republicans and not just flag-waving sloganeer's.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

I thought SOTM was talking about elections, not impeachment.

If there are enough people who think Bush has committed those crimes, then they should step up and get it done. So where are they? Why don't we hear the patriotic Democrats calling for it?

Then you shouldn't have had a problem with Clinton (there it is!!!!) being impeached for lying under oath. Glad we got that cleared up.

And get back in to the kitchen!!!

 

[Bill_Sykes]

Is this a direct quote from the memo or just someone's summation?

Yes, it is a direct quote from the memo. The secret Downing Street memo

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.

Intelligence and the facts were fixed to justify the invasion of Iraq. It couldn't be any more clear.

Numerous people have come forward to confirm that the intelligence and facts were being fixed to justify the invasion. Criminals Belong in Prison

Plenty of people have been bellowing about this for years now, often risking their own well-being and that of their families in the process. Richard Clarke, former White House Counter-Terrorism Czar, spent a lot of time talking about how the books were being cooked to justify an invasion of Iraq. Tom Maertens, who was National Security Council director for nuclear non-proliferation for both the Clinton and Bush White House, backed up Clarke's story with his own eyewitness testimony.

Roger Cressey, Clarke's former deputy, witnessed one of the most damning charges that has been leveled against the administration by Clarke: They blew past al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, focusing instead on Iraq. Donald Kerrick, a three-star General who served as deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton and stayed for several months in the Bush White House, likewise saw this happening.

Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary for George W. Bush, was afforded a position on the National Security Council because of his job as Treasury Secretary, and sat in on the Iraq invasion planning sessions which were taking place months before the attacks of September 11. Those planning sessions kicked into high gear when the Towers came down.

Greg Thielmann, former Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, watched with shock and awe as the White House rolled out the 'uranium from Niger' war justifications that had been so thoroughly debunked. Joseph Wilson, former ambassador and career diplomat, was the one who debunked it.

After Wilson described what he didn't see in Niger in the New York Times, the White House reached out and crushed his wife's career. His wife, Valerie Plame, was a deep-cover CIA agent running a network dedicated to tracking any person, group or nation that would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. The White House torpedoed her career and her network as a warning to Wilson, and to any other whistleblower who might come forward.

The most damning testimony regarding "fixing intelligence and facts around the policy" came from Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski. Kwiatkowski worked in the office of Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, and worked specifically with a secretive outfit called the Office of Special Plans. Kwiatkowski's own words tell her story: "From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq."

"I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy," continued Kwiatkowski, "favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

In other words, they fixed the intelligence and facts around the policy. The policy, of course, was invasion.

Each of these people, and others like them who reported similar intelligence book-cooking, were brushed off by the White House, dismissed out of hand as liars, or worse, Democrats. With the leaking of the secret British intelligence memo, however, their reports have been confirmed.

This can not be surprised to anyone. Clark, O'Neill and others have all confirmed that Bush was set on invading Iraq without regard to who was really responsible for Sept. 11.

What is sad is that so many conservatives and Bush supporters are unable to admit to themselves the truty. Bush has lied to them and the American public. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.