PDA

View Full Version : What Bush knew: This time, it's Iraq



nAz
03-02-2006, 01:10 PM
Grab this off www.Salon.com (http://www.Salon.com)
I got to find the National Journal so i can read the whole thing...


It may be Oscar Week everywhere else, but it's sure shaping up to be "Bush Knew" Week in these parts. The latest: Murray Waas reports in the National Journal today that the president was specifically told before he went to war that aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq probably weren't meant for nuclear weapons and that Saddam Hussein wasn't likely to attack the United States, either on his own or through ties to international terrorists.

As Waas writes, news of the reports -- both of which he says were delivered directly to the president -- casts doubt on "key public assertions" George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other administration officials offered as "justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein."

In the first of the reports, Waas says, Bush was informed in early October 2002 that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that aluminum tubes Saddam had procured were "intended for conventional weapons." That report contradicted the "aluminum tubes as nuclear threats" story line the administration began using in September 2002, when somebody leaked it to the New York Times' Michael Gordon and Judy Miller. "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts," the Times said then, and administration officials took to the airwaves to chime in. Donald Rumsfeld warned of a nuclear 9/11. Condoleezza Rice said that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs," and she brushed away any sense of uncertainty by insisting that we wouldn't want the "smoking gun" to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Shortly thereafter, Bush himself told the General Assembly of the United Nations that Iraq had "made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." And in his 2003 State of the Union speech, right after uttering the much more famous 16 words about Niger, Bush said: "Our intelligence sources tell us that [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

It's hard to know how many Americans were swayed by the faulty aluminum tubes story, but it was all part of the larger argument: Saddam Hussein had to be removed, the president would say, because he's a "gathering threat," a man who could "decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." "If I thought we were safe from attack, I would be thinking differently," Bush said in March 2003..\ "But I see a gathering threat. I mean, this is a true, real threat to America."

Bush may well have thought that, but it wasn't because he wasn't getting contrary views. In January 2003, Waas says, the president was handed a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate. "The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if 'ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime' or if he intended to 'extract revenge' for such an assault, according to records and sources." There was one exception, Waas says: The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said Saddam was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland" even if a U.S. invasion threatened his regime.

wolfdancer
03-02-2006, 04:10 PM
nAz, as each new lie is uncovered and exposed....it's hard for me to understand how anybody can give him any credibility?
How can lying about this, and presenting this to Congress, not be an impeachable offense?
I'm sure this latest news will be of great comfort to people who have lost their loved ones, and vets who are maimed for life.

Drop1
03-02-2006, 08:14 PM
The Congress has no balls,thats why Bush is not impeached.

Gayle in MD
03-03-2006, 08:06 AM
Very True, the documentation on the lies is certainly unqestionable, but the Republicans continue to block phase two of the investigation. This is the reason why the Democrats shut the house down some months back. Since then, I haven't heard anything else about it??????? Has anyone else?

It is an impeachable offense, a felony, to lie to the congress and the Senate. I think I heard or read somwhere that there is a very long Statue Of Limitations on this. Sometimes I wonder if no one wants to cause an upheaval in the midst of our current serious problems, exascurbated by Bush's policies, and they're waiting until he is out of office to bring charges. That is probably wishful thinking on my part.

Back a few months ago, when they shut everything down, demanding the investigation, Phase II, be launched, I thought the Democrats were going to finally be able to get this issue of knowingly lying us into war with false information on the table again. WHAT HAPPENED???

BTW, Richard Clarke's book give a complete time line of the lies told by Bush, Rice and Cheney.

Rice.....
"Before 9/11, no one had ever imagined people flying airplanes into buildings."

Total lie.

Bush....
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breaching of the Levees in New Orleans."

Total lie

Cheney....
"There is no question that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Total Lie

Just three of the lies. Also, the claims of biological weapons had been completely proven to be false. Saddam's brother who defected had already told them that he had personally destroyed them, and everything else. Saddam had facilities to re-charge a plan for producing WMD's, but the experts all agreed, that given the box he was in, it would be impossible for him to reconstitute, and that even if he tired to do so, there was no way that he could be successful while in his circumstances. The tightening of sanctions and investigations in Iraq would have brought about a multi-national all out smashing of his regime, which would have been launched by most of the civilized world. Most Middle East Experts agree that Bush's refusal to allow those efforts to continue, and to continue organize international support against Saddam, was a huge mistake, and one that would put the United States in just the trick bag which ObL hoped for. Many, both in and out of the administration, warned Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfled, that an occupation in Iraq would lead to civil war, which would then leak over borders into more threatening, dangerous circumstances in the Middle East, IOW, make everything worse than it already was. Those nay sayers, were discredited and discarded. The Neocon movement has proven to be exactly the disaster which terrorist and Middle East experts predicted. People who rage against Bush Senior, and Clinton, as though they were cowards who allowed attacks, and or failed to retaliate in an all out War in the Middle East, have no understanding of the vast and tenuously delicate complexion which has existed and expanded in the area over the last twenty years, the center of which was far more broad than a Pion like Saddam. In the whole scenario, Saddam was but a little knat, beaten down, and impotent.

Gayle in Md.