A Crack In Bush's Facade Growing WMD Scandal
By Ted Rall
6-28-3

MINNEAPOLIS -- Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction. He lied to us, the United Nations, and the soldiers he sent to die in Iraq. Bush's apologists defend his attempts to sell this obscene war as mere spin, but claiming certain knowledge of something that doesn't exist is hardly a question of emphasis. It's time to stop wondering where the WMDs are. Even if nukes and gases and anthrax turn up in prodigious quantities, it won't matter. Proof of Bush's perfidy, unlike his accusations that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, is irrefutable.

Before he ordered U.S. forces to kill and maim tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi soldiers and civilians, Bush and Co. repeatedly maintained that they had absolute proof that Saddam Hussein still possessed WMDs. "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Dick Cheney said in August. In January, Ari Fleisher said: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." WMDs; not a "WMD program" as they now refer to it. WMDs--not just indications of possible, or probable, WMDs.

Absolute proof.

During the first days of the war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stared into television cameras, looked right at his employers (that's you and me), and said that he knew exactly where they were. "We know where they are," Rumsfeld said. "They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."

Uh-huh. So where are they?

"Absolute" proof is a high standard--heck, it's a nearly impossible benchmark. The last time I checked, my cat was in my kitchen, licking the milk at the bottom of my cereal bowl. As intel goes, mine is triple-A-rated--I witnessed it this morning, and I've spent the better part of a decade observing that animal. But if you were to demand absolute proof of kitty's current location, I couldn't give it to you. I'd bet that he's sleeping on my bed. But he could be in the litter box, on the windowsill, or sneaking out an open window. Truth is, I don't know where he is. To say otherwise, to present even a well-founded hypothesis as Fact, would be a lie.

Bush had conjecture, wishful thinking and stale intelligence going for him. He needed absolute proof, and the absence thereof is leading to talk of impeachment. Before the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld argues, "Virtually everyone agreed they did [have WMDs]--in Congress, in successive Democratic and Republican administrations, in the intelligence communities here in the United States, and also in foreign countries and at the U.N., even among those countries that did not favor military action in Iraq." Untrue.

The Bush Administration didn't have proof, so they spent last fall making it up. As Robin Cook, who resigned from Tony Blair's cabinet over the war, told the British Parliament: "Instead of using intelligence as evidence on which to base a decision about policy, we used intelligence as the basis to justify a policy on which we had already decided."

By January 2003, 81 percent of respondents to an ABC News poll said they believed that Iraq "posed a threat to the United States."

Previous administrations, reliant on the CIA for reliable information, have traditionally respected a "Chinese wall" between Langley and the White House. As Republicans blame the CIA for the missing WMDs, leaks from within the CIA increasingly indicate that Dick Cheney and others sought to politicize its reports on Iraq, cherry-picking factoids that backed its war cry and dismissing those that didn't. This dubious practice culminated with Colin Powell's over-the-top performance before the U.N., where he misrepresented documents he knew to be forged--which he privately derided as "bullshit"!--as hard fact.

The Administration's defenders, whose selective morality makes Bill Clinton look like a saint, argue that the WMDs don't matter, that Saddam's mass graves vindicate the war liars. But no one ever denied that Hussein was evil. The American people knew that Saddam was a butcher during the '80s when we backed him, and during the '90s when we contained him. They weren't willing to go to war over regime change in the '00s, which is why the Administration invented a fictional threat. Now that we know that presidents lie about the need for war, how will future presidents rally us against genuine dangers?

Lying to the American people is impeachable. Waging war without cause is subject to prosecution at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. But insiders have to talk before the media can aggressively pursue the WMD story, prosecutors can be appointed and top evildoers brought to justice.

Now Slaughtergate has its own Alexander Butterfield. Christian Westermann, a respected State Department intelligence analyst talking to Congress, has testified that Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a Bush political appointee, pressured him to change a report on Cuba so that it would back Bush claims that Cuba was developing biological weapons. Westermann says that when he refused, Bolton tried to have him transferred.

Westermann's testimony doesn't relate to Iraq, but it puts the lie to Bushoid assertions that they never messed with the CIA. A reliable source informs me that there's a "jihad" underway between Administration political operatives and the career intelligence community. "Guys are pissed off that they're being asked to take the fall for the White House. Look for more leaks in the future," this official says.

Meanwhile, Gen. Richard Meyers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been reduced to parsing the meaning of intelligence: "Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean something is true," he says.

Now he tells us.

(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan," an analysis of the underreported Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project and the real motivations behind the war on terrorism. Ordering information is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.)

COPYRIGHT 2003 TED RALL

http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

Zippergate?

OR

Slaughtergate?


Actually this is somewhat unfair which I readily admit. Clinton had the trumped up Kosovo War which also resulted in the Murder of a lot of people. It also was based upon LIES. The famous Barbed Wire Death Camp Photo which was actually shot from inside a Barbed Wire Fence surrounding a Tool Shed looking out. But it was great PsyOps it looked like the Barbed Wire of a Concentration Camp Fence. It wasn't, but it looked good in the "News".

The Baby Incubator Atrocity in Kuwait was the creation, out of Whole Cloth, of PR Firm Hill and Knowlton.

Either you can accept the lies and allow the slaughter to continue with your consent or you can raise your voice and demand accountability.

If you don't stand up it means you support it.

If you're not outraged you're not paying attention.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

Of course, Clinton was not impeached for fooling around with Monica Lewinsky; he was impeached for committing perjury during the Paula Jones sexual harassment case - not a minor matter, and one for which he most certainly would have fired a subordinate. And Clinton murdered a number of people in misslie strikes aimed at Afghanistan, the Sudan, and Iraq, as well as in the enforcement of the sanctions against Iraq, which may have cost the lives of millions. And the savage attack on Yugoslavia established new standards of brutality in Europe probably not seen since World War II. But, granting that, the openly illegal invasion of Iraq by Bush, the crude imperialism of the occupation or Iraq and the enforced "privatization" of its economy, and the attacks on the Bill of Rights that have, in some respects, esceeded those of the McCarthy Era, mark a new low in American politics.

What complete bullshit.

Bush didn't lie. He's one of the most honest Presidents we've ever had -- not a slimeball like Bill Clinton.

And there is no serious talk about impeachment. That's just utter nonsense coming from the radical left fringe.

GWB continues to garner support of the American people. Today's approval ratings stand at 68%. Americans approve of President Bush by more than a 2 to 1 margin, and that's been the case from the get go.

Get used to it. He's going to be our President until 2008.

The question you lefties should be contemplating is whether the Republicans will sweep both houses of Congress in addition to winning the White House. I think they will and I think they should.

Spoken from the man that said the peace protests in September were ten smelly hippies and nothing more

Prescott Bush: Nazis? What Nazi's?

George H. W. Bush: "Read my Lips no new Taxes."

George W. Bush: What WMDs?

Three Generations of Criminals.

Bush Asskisser = Apologist for lying, thieving murderers.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

I stated that Bush launched a clearly illegal attack against Iraq, that the occupation of that country and the forced privatization of its economy are exercises in crude imperialism, and that Bush's administration has launched attacks upon the Bill of Rights that, in some respects, exceed those of the McCarthy Era. Bush Admirer's response to this is that Bush got a 68 percent approval rating is some poll. Apparently, in his mind, this makes all that I mentioned ok. OK with him maybe, and for a great number of hyperventilating, angry white males who don't give a damn about whether something is legal as long as it leads to killing members of what they consider the inferior races. However, the world feels differently, and history will judge Bush the way it has judged Hitler and Mussolini.

Does Saddam Hussein exist? How about Osama bin Laden? Or Eric Rudolph?

Saddam and Osama must not exist. Why? Because they cannot be found. And, as we all know from witnessing the recent hyperventilation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, if something can't be found, it must not exist.

The case of serial bomber Eric Rudolph is trickier. He was missing for five years. If a few weeks of being unable to find weapons in Iraq is cited as evidence of their nonexistence, then surely five years was plenty of time to prove Rudolph wasn't real. But, like a miracle, the nonexistent man was discovered dumpster diving behind a supermarket.

Obviously, there's plenty of evidence supporting the existence of Saddam, Osama and Rudolph. If Saddam never existed, then how did all those body-doubles end up looking alike? Was it mere coincidence? Or were they modeling themselves after the Soup Nazi? And if Osama never existed, then who is that guy in all those video tapes? Did a member of ZZ-Top dye his beard, become bulimic and fall asleep on a tanning bed? And what about Rudolph? Those bombs didn't wire themselves.

Yet, because a cache of chemical or biological weapons hasn't yet been discovered in Iraq, we are now being told that they don't exist and that President Bush lied to us. Of course, the motivation of the accusers is suspect; they were willing to give U.N. inspectors an unlimited amount of time to find these weapons, but the U.S. doesn't even get a full two months.

Who's Lying?
When the U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998, a substantial stockpile of Iraqi weapons remained. This stockpile was no figment of faulty intelligence reports; it was catalogued in great detail by the United Nations. And, on January 27th of this year, Hans Blix reiterated the inventory of weapons that--after five years--Hussein still hadn't accounted for: 8,500 liters of anthrax, 1,000 tons of poison gas, 6,500 bombs capable of delivering chemical weapons, and "thousands" of poison gas rockets. Was Blix lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

On December 17, 1998, Bill Clinton launched a military strike against Iraq, saying the mission was "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs." Was Clinton lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?

In 1998, Senator Robert Byrd argued strongly for military action against Iraq, saying, "the administration needs to act sooner rather than later." Apparently, Byrd's sense of urgency was much more acute when a fellow Democrat occupied the White House; even though President Bush cited the same reasons as Clinton, Byrd accuses the Republican of lying.

Twelve Galaxies
If Bush did fabricate evidence of Saddam's weapons, he must have done so in the 1990s, before becoming president. What else could explain the prior involvement of Clinton, Blix, the U.N. inspectors and everyone else who "knew" about the Iraqi weapons program? Maybe they all hatched the scheme at a meeting of the Secret Government Where Jews And Space Aliens Control The Fate Of The World. Or, maybe President Bush planned it more recently. Yeah, post-September 11th hubris. But that would require Bush to travel back in time and brainwash all those people. It could happen...it's about as plausible as Saddam Hussein unilaterally disarming.

Forgive my skepticism, but much of the crowing seems like a cheap attempt to score political points against a President for whom some on the left wish nothing but disaster, even when it means the death of our own troops. After all, no number of jailed children, torture chambers, mass graves or women raped in front of their families is enough to convince the immobile pacifists that ridding Iraq of Saddam was worthy. Even if Iraq's arsenal were uncovered today, the gripes would just shift to another topic. Let's face it: those complaining the loudest about weapons of mass destruction weren't terribly concerned about them when Saddam Hussein was in power. But now--all of a sudden--time is of the essence. Now, two months is too long. What happened to the infinite patience, guys?

Ultimately, this war was a Rorschach test for the world. Some people simply believe that Saddam Hussein--trustworthy chap that he is--voluntarily disarmed while nobody was looking, and that President Bush lied to lead us to war. Frame the argument however you want, this fundamental division still underlies any discussion about the war: you either trust President Bush more than you trust Saddam Hussein, or you don't.

(hey)
unsubstantiated allegation. Show me, don't blow me.

No matter how you try to slice and dice it, create contorted rationalizations, and further try to make the point fuzzy the Bush Junta stated with absolute certainty on repeated occaisions that they knew for sure of the existence of the Golden Fleece. Oops! Scuse me, Weapons of Mass Destruction © 2001 The White House. Bush assured us that as soon as we Conquered the Sudentenland, oops Iraq, that we would find the Holy Grail, and that the World would be safe for Democracy and that We would end all Wars and have "Fresh Minty Breath".

Reality is that Bush Lied.
Colin, I've got the Dossier Right here in My Hand, Powell Lied.
Cheney Lied.
Rumsfeld Lied.
Perle Lied.
Wolfowitz Lied.
Ari Fourflusher Lied.
The Pentagoon Lied.

This many people all telling the same lie does not occur by accident - it is part of a planned campaign to sell The Brooklyn Bridge i.e., Weapons of Mass Deception.

Which is kind of what Mr. Baloney above was trying to sell.

I'm not buying your bogus sales pitch of "Why can't we Just be friends" - and ignore all those dead and dying people over there.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE ARE STILL DYING. It really is that evil.

dio you don't give a flying fuck at the moon about the iraqi people and you never have and you never will. Your hatred of bush and all who support him allows you to pretend your sudden compassion for the iraqi's. You've posted here long enough and all of a sudden your a humanitarian for iraqi concerns. You are transparent. Where were your complaints when saddam was killing his own fucking people.

Complaints that Saddam was killing people? The Us was urging him on until 1990. Besides, the last I heard Saddam was not the President of the United States; Bush is (well, according to the Supreme Court reactionaries, anyway); therefore the American people are far better placed to make criticisms of him than of foreign heads of government.
By the way, no one has proven that UFO bases don't exist in the Mojave Desert or that refugees from Atlantis didn't found the Inca Empire. Does this mean that you believe in these things?

Or maybe they did. I don't really know for sure.

I think it's pointless to argue and speculate over whether or not they were "honest" with us.

What we do need to discuss is the outcome.

The administration DID put a TREMENDOUS spin of urgency on the WMD aspect of this whole campaign.

They claimed that, through existence of Hussein and, the existence of those WMD, the very existence of the American way of life was threatened.

And they refused to give U.N. weapons inspectors ANY more time, as was the outcry from the world.

Anyone that denies ANY of these things is a liar.

Now where are we?

Hussein probably still exists, and evidently so do the WMD since we haven't found squat.

Does that mean that our way of life is still under assault?

If you bought into the administrations line, then that's exactly what it means.

Now, the administration wants more time. The very same element they refused to grant to the U.N.

Now I'm not going to scream about Bush being a liar, but people DID die.

This is NOT looking very good for the administration.

Eric, didn't SH's top weapon official defect to tell us that all the C & B stocks were destroyed in 1997? I'll do some
digging.

It was not 1997 but 1995
Result of dig:

Launching the war, Bush told the nation that "the people of the
United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy
of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of
mass murder." In the months before the war, the administration
said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax;
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard and
VX nerve agent; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering
chemical agents.
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030425bushwmdnatp1.asp

Ahh... here it is...

KAMEL WAS SADDAM Hussein’s son-in-law and had direct
knowledge of what he claimed: for 10 years he had run Iraq’s nuclear,
chemical, biological and missile programs. Kamel told his Western
interrogators that he hoped his revelations would trigger Saddam’s
overthrow. But after six months in exile in Jordan, Kamel realized the
United States would not support his dream of becoming Iraq’s ruler
after Saddam’s demise. He chose to return to Iraq—where he was
promptly killed.
http://www.redrat.net/BUSH_WAR/newsweek.htm

Relevant entry from above URL


NEWSWEEK - March 3 issue — Hussein Kamel, the highest-ranking Iraqi
official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein’s inner circle, told CIA and
British intelligence officers and U.N. inspectors in the summer of 1995
that after the gulf war, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological
weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them.

Well said.

On top of that I feel that those who choose to attack Bush and his WMD claims should stop and think for a moment about WHERE they got their information from--if they do not, then I'd say they're naive for not considering the possibility that the source of their information is not based on facts, but on SPECULATION.

Well said.

On top of that I feel that those who choose to attack Bush and his WMD claims should stop and think for a moment about WHERE they got their information from--if they do not, then I'd say they're naive for not considering the possibility that the source of their information is not based on facts, but on SPECULATION.

Well said.

On top of that I feel that those who choose to attack Bush and his WMD claims should stop and think for a moment about WHERE they got their information from--if they do not, then I'd say they're naive for not considering the possibility that the source of their information is not based on facts, but on SPECULATION.

Why did you post the same meaningless post three times?
To cover up the links presented above them?

i did not mean to post my comment over and over but they weren't appearing on my monitor, apparently something screwed up at my end. Sorry

are you telling me that my statement is wrong?
so you're saying it's better to believe everything you hear and not take the time to look into it yourself and find out if it's legit? It's meaningless to think for yourself?

Concidering that the WMD debacle and the lack there of.
We have no data to suport the CLAIM of Iraq being any danger
to anyone but the poor bastards that got caught in this little CIA dance of death.

...just on the basis of the evidence the Bush Junta has produced to support their pre-war claims of imminent end of the World.

They have none, no, nada, zero, evidence to support their lies.

Either you are a Shill or you are taking a trip up Denial.

Bush lied. There is no getting around it. Go ahead and wiggle all you want - you are just trying to obfuscate the obvious conclusion.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED AS A RESULT. It really is that simple, and evil.

circle stuck in neutral

...still, are people really so suprised that WMD have not turned up yet? Consider the U.N.'s method to inspect Iraq...basically it's analogous to a 15 year old kid(Iraq) being told by his mom(U.N.), "In a couple of months I'm coming up to your room to see if you're hiding any drugs(WMD) in there." Sounds like a half-assed attempt with a fairly predictable outcome. I think their efforts would've been more fruitful if they weren't so damn overt about it.

...was because the sheeple were told we were in danger
of these WMDs.
Some danger. Hidden so well they couldn't be found or used.
let me restate what the meat puppet told us:
Launching the war, Bush told the nation that "the people of the
United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy
of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of
mass murder." In the months before the war, the administration
said that Iraq had not accounted for 25,000 liters of anthrax;
38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard and
VX nerve agent; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering
chemical agents.
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20030425bushwmdnatp1.asp

kinda hard to miss.

My, my all that just to let us know you got the memo. You pretty much covered all the talking points spun out by every right wing pundit . That's what I like about you right wing guys, you've got that lock step thing going on. Loyalty to the leader even if it's against your own best interest. If you're not careful you'll be raising your right hand and saying "hile" and you won't know what hit you.

George Bush (well not George exactly, we all know he doesn't have an intelligent thought in his head) has made it his mission to dismantel everything Bill Clinton ever did but when he needs to deflect blame suddenly Bill is great company. I'm always amused at how GW and the GOP spinmeisters pull out the "they did it too" mantra when they need to deflect blame. Well Bill Clinton didn't turn the entire world community against us and squander the good will we had amassed after 911. Now nobody wants to share the burden of peacekeeping and our poor kids are getting picked off like sitting ducks. How does one rationalize that?

I do understand how you "need" to believe this war was/is just. What kind of monster could send those innocent and brave young men and women to their deaths based on hyped, flawed and fabricated intelligence? Not to mention the thousands of nameless/faceless dead Iraqi's. I wonder where their mass graves are. I'm sure it's a comfort to those mother's who now have limbless children to care for because of project "Iraqi Freedom", but hey they should be grateful, thyey're liberated!!! It's far to horrible to imagine. Then again, this is the guy who declared war and immediately went out on the White House lawn to play with his dog for a photo op. I wonder how Mr. Bush can sleep at night? Now that was a silly question.

So let's see: In recent years the greatest superpower in the history of the world has attacked:

1) Grenada
2) Panama
3) Yugoslavia
4) Afghanistan
5) Iraq

Could we pick on poorer countries? This must make politicians happy to know that we can bomb the most desolate countries in the world into even more desolate places. What a great country we live in, where we have the power to give life or death and we consistently use it to murder people. Compassion?

we could pick on Ethiopia

...Ethiopia is in AFRICA. We don't care about Africa. Not enough oil.

1) Grenada - Geopolitical Intervention - too close to home.

2) Panama - Manuel Noriega was an ex-business partner in the Dope Trade with the Bush 41. Also C.I.A. Stoolie - got too big for his britches and was threatening to expose Bush/CIA involvement in the Cocaine Trade.

3) Yugoslavia - Trepka Mining Complex - one of the richest Nickel Deposits on the planet. Estimated to be worth at least 1.5 Trillion Dollars. Contracts had been signed - cutting out U.S. and Northern European Business. A Greek Company got the Contracts before the Raid if memory serves.

4) Afghanistan - Unocal's new subsidiary - Oil of course.

5) Iraq - Oil.

All but Grenada had U.S. Businesses or Politicians as the prime beneficiaries.

man i sure am glad to be a corporate whore