Bush-WARNED-but didn't listen.

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Italy's PM says warned Bush against Iraq war By Phil Stewart
2 hours, 10 minutes ago



ROME (Reuters) - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, on the eve of a trip to Washington, said he repeatedly tried to persuade U.S. President George W. Bush against invading Iraq.



The Italian leader voiced his unease with the military operation to topple Saddam Hussein during a television interview to be broadcast on Monday -- the same day he meets Bush.

Berlusconi is one of Washington's strongest allies but he did not send troops to join the invasion, preferring to despatch troops only after the fall of Baghdad.

"I tried many times to convince the American president not to go to war," Berlusconi was quoted as saying by La7 television network, which recorded the interview.

"I tried to find other avenues and other solutions, even through an activity with the African leader (Libya's Col. Muammar) Gaddafi. But we didn't succeed and there was the military operation."

One of Berlusconi's staff said he knew Berlusconi had given La7 television an interview, but could not confirm the comments. Berlusconi is scheduled to leave for Washington on Sunday.

Berlusconi pulled about 300 soldiers from Iraq earlier this year as part of a phased withdrawal, leaving about 2,900 troops there. He is trailing in opinion polls ahead of April elections to center-left rival, Romano Prodi, who promises to withdraw all Italian forces from Iraq if he is voted into office.

NIGER URANIUM?

The context of Berlusconi's answers in the interview were unclear since La7 only provided small excerpts.

The Italian leader has been defending himself against accusations in Italy that the country's intelligence agency, possibly after government pressure, passed-off fake documents to Washington used to bolster claims of Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

The documents purported that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger.

His office has sent out two statements in the past week categorically denying the accusations, made by left-leaning La Repubblica newspaper. Sismi intelligence agency chief Nicolo Pollari is due to address a closed-door parliamentary panel over the matter on November 3.

Bush cited intelligence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa in his State of the Union address in 2003 before the Iraq war.

The claim fueled criticism from the husband of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose identity was later leaked, sparking a scandal that led to the indictment on Friday of Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby.

"I have never been convinced that war was the best system to make a country democratic and help it escape dictatorship, even a bloody one," Berlusconi was quoted as saying by La7.


One might safely assume that other leaders "cautioned" bush....too. Remember the anti war protests.??? In the bush"mind" everyone else was wrong and he was "right". But then he had his own agenda here. And getting rid of SH was only a small part of it.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Bush-WARNED-but didn'

BUsh never listens, he was hell bent on invading Iraq before he even decided to run for president and nothing was going to change his mind. He wants control. He is scared of all the "muscle" OPEC has on the world oil, therefore if he can get a puppet government in Iraq (and even Syria and Iran) he can have more influence to dictate the world oil reserves and prices.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: Bush-WARNED-but didn'

no1important said:
BUsh never listens, he was hell bent on invading Iraq before he even decided to run for president and nothing was going to change his mind. He wants control. He is scared of all the "muscle" OPEC has on the world oil, therefore if he can get a puppet government in Iraq (and even Syria and Iran) he can have more influence to dictate the world oil reserves and prices.


POWER.....and greed for more. :evil: History repeats itself......under a different name... different lies, and different tactics.

most "ineffectual" and insecure men through out history had the same compulsion for control and power. Some wanted it over a population, some over territory and now some over resources.

each one of this ilk never listened either. It is THEIR way or not at all. Some call them dictators, fascists, or???? Maybe the u.s. (given its propensity for new vernacular these days).....will come up with an new term for this that encompasses all that and more.


had considered "theo fascism" for a bit........but the bush gang is anything but "religious".........except if it will play to their audience.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
each one of this ilk never listened either. It is THEIR way or not at all. Some call them dictators, fascists, or???? Maybe the u.s. (given its propensity for new vernacular these days).....will come up with an new term for this that encompasses all that and more.


had considered "theo fascism" for a bit........but the bush gang is anything but "religious".........except if it will play to their audience.

Hunter Thompson already figured out what to call them. Pigfuckers. That's what they are, that's what they will always be.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Reverend Blair said:
each one of this ilk never listened either. It is THEIR way or not at all. Some call them dictators, fascists, or???? Maybe the u.s. (given its propensity for new vernacular these days).....will come up with an new term for this that encompasses all that and more.


had considered "theo fascism" for a bit........but the bush gang is anything but "religious".........except if it will play to their audience.

Hunter Thompson already figured out what to call them. Pigfuckers. That's what they are, that's what they will always be.

that works..;-) ..........and then the US population wonders why they are so resented on this planet. Voting these PF in twice .......says it all. It is not only the bush regime that no one can stand.......but those that follow its toxic poisonous agenda as well.

This has been building for some time........ever since the "ugly american " became a phenomena. the bush regime and his insanity (wars) simply became the icing on this malignant cake.
 

GL Schmitt

Electoral Member
Mar 12, 2005
785
0
16
Ontario
Reverend Blair said:
Hunter Thompson already figured out what to call them. Pigfuckers. That's what they are, that's what they will always be.
Meaning no disrespect to the memory of Hunter Thompson, but, I thought the official name was “ratf*ckers.”

For anyone who has re-screened “All The President’s Men” recently (possibly when W. Mark Felt revealed himself as Deep Throat) they will remember Donald Segretti and his squad of dirty tricksters who called themselves “ratfuckers”?

Karl Rove was one was one of Segretti's boys.

When Rove arrived in Bush’s train, he brought his old style with him, and one might say that after twenty-six years, brought “ratf*ckery” back to the White House.
 

Andygal

Electoral Member
May 13, 2005
518
0
16
BC
RE: Bush-WARNED-but didn'

Calling them ratf*ckers is an insult to rats. Fancy rats are lovely animals.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al 8Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.’’

The newly declassified portions of the document were made available by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Levin said the new evidence of early doubts about Mr. Libi’s statements dramatized what he called the Bush administration’s misuse of prewar intelligence to try to justify the war in Iraq. That is an issue that Mr. Levin and other Senate Democrats have been seeking to emphasize, in part by calling attention to the fact that the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee has yet to deliver a promised report, first sought more than two years ago, on the use of prewar intelligence.

An administration official declined to comment on the D.I.A. report on Mr. Libi. But Senate Republicans, put on the defensive when Democrats forced a closed session of the Senate this week to discuss the issue, have been arguing that Republicans were not alone in making prewar assertions about Iraq, illicit weapons and terrorism that have since been discredited.

Mr. Libi, who was captured in Pakistan at the end of 2001, recanted his claims in January 2004. That prompted the C.I.A., a month later, to recall all intelligence reports based on his statements, a fact recorded in a footnote to the report issued by the Sept. 11 commission.

Mr. Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts. Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war.

The report issued by the Senate intelligence committee in July 2004 questioned whether some versions of intelligence report prepared by the C.I.A. in late 2002 and early 2003 raised sufficient questions about the reliability of Mr. Libi’s claims.

But neither that report nor another issued by the Sept. 11 commission made any reference to the existence of the earlier and more skeptical 2002 report by the D.I.A., which supplies intelligence to military commanders and national security policy makers. As an official intelligence report, labeled DITSUM No. 044-02, the document would have circulated widely within the government, and it would have been available to the C.I.A., the White House, the Pentagon and other agencies. It remains unclear whether the D.I.A. document was provided to the Senate panel.

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place.

“It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers,’’ the February 2002 report said. “Ibn al-Shaykh has been undergoing debriefs for several weeks and may be describing scenarios to the debriefers that he knows will retain their interest.’’

Mr. Powell relied heavily on accounts provided by Mr. Libi for his speech to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, saying that he was tracing “the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda.’’

At the time of Mr. Powell’s speech, an unclassified statement by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as “credible.’’ But Mr. Levin said he had learned that a classified C.I.A. assessment at the time stated “the source was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.’’

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Levin also called attention to a portion of the D.I.A. report that expressed skepticism about the idea of close collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, an idea that was never substantiated by American intelligence but was a pillar of the administration’s prewar claims.

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements,’’ the D.I.A. report said in one of two declassified paragraphs. “Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’’

The request to declassify the two paragraphs was made on Oct. 18 by Mr. Levin and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. In an Oct. 26 response, Kathleen P. Turner, chief of the D.I.A.’s office for Congressional affairs, said the agency “can find no reason for it to remain classified.’’

At the time of his capture, Mr. Libi was the most senior Qaeda official in American custody. The D.I.A. document gave no indication of where he was being held, or what interrogation methods were used on him.

Mr. Libi remains in custody, apparently at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he was sent in 2003, according to government officials.

The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to meet beginning next week to review draft reports prepared as part of a long-postponed “Phase II’’ of the panel’s review of prewar intelligence on Iraq. At separate briefings for reporters on Friday, Republicans staff members said the writing had long been under way, while Senate Democrats on the committee claimed credit for reinvigorating the process, by forcing the closed session. They said that already nearly complete is a look at whether prewar intelligence accurately predicted the potential for an anti-American insurgency.

Other areas of focus include the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, that of the Pentagon in shaping intelligence assessments, and an examination of whether public statements about Iraq by members of the Bush and Clinton administrations, as well as members of Congress, were substantiated by intelligence available at the time.


one has to wonder what bush was really striving for with his Iraq criminality.........as he sure had a burr up his butt about the nation that was no threat to the US. What was he trying to prove?? to himself?? to his daddy?? mommy???
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1117-08.htm

Time to bring "them" home........ as the war of words escalates in washington.

People who signed on to the war........are publically stating it was a big mistake, and regret it.

Of couse the neocon bush cabal keeps coming up with the same shallow spin as a "defense". ( amazing how it is always the other guy's fault.........when it come to them bozos and how they stoop so low as to use guilt induction/manipulation)
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Bush can't handle the truth





In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor President, George W. Bush last week blamed "some Democrats and anti-war critics" for changing their minds about the war in Iraq and now saying they were deceived. "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the President said. Yes, sir, but it is even more deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how history was rewritten in the first place.
It is the failure to acknowledge this that is so troubling about Bush and others in his administration. Yes, the President is right: Foreign intelligence services also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; Saddam Hussein simply ignored more than a dozen UN resolutions demanding that he reopen his country to arms inspectors.

We can endlessly debate the facts. More important, though, is the mind-set of those in the administration, from the President on down, who had those facts - or, as we shall see, none at all - and mangled them in the cause of the war.

For example, the insistence that Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11 tells you that to Bush and his people, the facts did not matter. It did not matter that Mohamed Atta never met with Iraqis in Prague. It did not matter that Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, was finding no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. None of that mattered to Vice President Cheney, a fibber without peer in the realm, who warned of a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program, promoted the nonexistent Prague meeting and went after legitimate critics. "We will not hesitate to discredit you," Cheney told ElBaradei and Hans Blix, the other important UN inspector. ElBaradei recently won the Nobel Peace Prize.

The President's recent speech conflates all sorts of terrorist incidents - neglecting that they are specific to their regions and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Every bombing somehow becomes an attack on Western values.

Oh stop it! It would be nice, fitting and pretty close to sexually exciting if Bush somehow acknowledged his mistakes and said he had learned from them. But far more important is what this would mean in foreign policy from here on out. Repeatedly in his speech, Bush mentioned Syria, Iran and North Korea - Syria above all. If push comes to shove there, it would be nice to have confidence in American intelligence and the case for possibly widening the war. If we are to go to the mat with North Korea or the increasingly alarming Iran, then, once again, it would be wonderful to have the confidence we once had in the intelligence community. Is there or is there not a threatening nuclear weapons program on the horizon?

At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration. Almost three years into the war, the world is not safer, the Middle East is less stable and Americans and others die for a mission that is not what it once was called: a fight for democracy. It would be nice, as well as important, to know how we got into this mess - nice for us, important for the President. It wasn't that he had the wrong facts. It was that the right ones didn't matter.

.......and nor can his neocon bush-followers.. (handle the truth). So they keep spinning the same yarn , with some embellishments each time the situation gets a tad "hot".

(fecking liars......from bush on down)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
"I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.

Man, Murtha pretty much called Cheney a draft-dodging coward and an idiot. It was a beautiful thing to see. Of course he had helpers...

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the White House of "a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war" with its campaign against war critics.
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said Bush's "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering" led the country into war.

Murtha said he would introduce a resolution calling for the return of U.S. forces in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." He called the war "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll this week said 63 percent of Americans oppose Bush's handling of the Iraq war, and 52 percent say troops should be pulled out now or within 12 months.

Dick and Georgie are inept cowards.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Admit It: The US Has Been Defeated in Iraq
Dave Lindorff



November 18, 2005

Rep. John Murtha, the decorated Vietnam and Korean War Marine vet and conservative Pennsylvania Democrat who stunned Bush administration and Republican congressional warhawks and Democratic go-alongs like Sens. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden alike with his call for an immediate U.S. pullout from Iraq, left unsaid one important word in his dramatic turnaround announcement: defeat.

But that’s the real message of his change of heart from Iraq War backer and booster to peacenik.

The war begun by President Bush with such bravado and so little braino, which was designed to convert him from a dismal president to a crisp and awe-inspiring commander-in-chief, has been lost.

The nearly 2100 Americans who have died so far to help the president get re-elected, to make him look like a leader, and to provide cover for his criminal executive power grab, have died for nothing.

An unorganized bunch of insurgents armed with nothing but raw guts, aging Soviet-era rifles, and home-made explosives, have routed the most powerful military machine the world has ever known.

There will be efforts to cover up this astonishing defeat, just as there were efforts made by the Nixon and Ford administrations to hide the fact that the U.S. was defeated in Indochina, too, but the truth is clear.

American military might can destroy a country. It can kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. It can sow terror through the use of indiscriminate use of such WMDs as DU explosives, phosphorus bombs, helicopter and fixed-wing gunships and computerized drones and missiles. But it cannot defeat a concerted popular resistance.

The American military, according to some generals, is once again, as it was during the Vietnam War, falling apart. Recruitment is collapsing, both for the regular Army and Marines, and for the reserves and the National Guard. Parts and even ammunition are in short supply. Morale is at an all time low and sinking.

Who in Iraq would want to die for Bush and Cheney at this point? And yet they keep on dying.

Murtha has it right. It’s long past time to call the whole disastrous thing off. The Bush-Cheney mantra of "stay the course" is the desperate cry of two mad men caught in a trap of their own making--two men who are perfectly willing to send thousands more American soldiers to their deaths, and to slaughter tens of thousands more innocent Iraqis, in order to cling to power and to defer a final reckoning for their crimes.

They cannot be permitted to do this.

The war is lost. Iraq has been destroyed and will have to be helped for a long time to allow its people to recover somehow from the devastation caused by decades of brutal dictatorship, American-led sanctions and America’s war of aggression and criminal occupation. The broken military will have to be returned home and made into something appropriate for a world that settles disputes diplomatically, not by unilateral acts of violence and terror. Finally, the veterans of this war will need help recovering from the horrors they were forced to participate in and from the physical and psychic wounds they have endured.

Meanwhile, the political leaders who brought all this about must be called to account. Either they apologize, as growing numbers of Democrats (and some Republicans) have begun to do, like Murtha, vice-presidential candidate John Edwards and even presidential candidate John Kerry, have done, or they must be voted out. The criminal authors of this war—Bush, Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and others should be impeached or indicted as appropriate.

The first step will be admitting that the US has been defeated in Iraq. Murtha is right that the troops did what was asked of them, but their sacrifices were for naught. The war is lost.

Then we can begin the blame game in earnest.

seems bush was so intent on proving something about himself.........that he ended up doing just that. Each Iraqi death, beheading, torture, .....and US death.....rests squarely on bush's shoulders........as all these people DIED for some Egotistical equation in the bush agenda. NOT ONE of the troops died for the US....as these no -braino types will have one believe. They died for some crusade that bush inc. had in mind. and nothing more.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Wed Nov 23, 3:39 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush was reportedly informed 10 days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that US intelligence had no proof of links between Iraq and that act of terror.



Citing government documents as well as past and present Bush administration officials, The National Journal said the president was briefed on September 21, 2001 that evidence of cooperation between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terror network was insufficient.

Bush was also informed that there was some credible information about contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda that showed that the Iraqi dictator had tried to establish surveillance over the group, according to the report.

Saddam Hussein believed the radical Islamic network represented a threat for his secular regime.

Little additional evidence has emerged over the past four years that could contradict the CIA conclusion about a lack of a collaborative relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Journal quotes a high-level government official as saying.

The magazine believes the evidence raises yet more questions about the administration's use of intelligence in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

from Yahoo news.

Another confirmation that Iraq was on Bush's mind right after 9-11

gosh, he must have been just salivating at the prospect... :evil: :x
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
Defense hawk Dicks says he now sees war as a mistake

Dicks now says it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war.

Dicks, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, says he's particularly angry about the intelligence that supported going to war.

Without the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), he said, he would "absolutely not" have voted for the war.

The Bush administration has accused some members of Congress of rewriting history by claiming the president misled Americans about the reasons for going to war. Congress, the administration says, saw the same intelligence and agreed Iraq was a threat.

But Dicks says the intelligence was "doctored." And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency.

Click link at top for rest of article.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
one ..slowly.......by one they are expressing their regrets . Interesting. A new momentum??? (hope so)

I (personally) can respect those that admit to making a mistake and expressing regret.