From Watergate to Downing Street -- Lying for War

Ocean Breeze

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9232.htm


Good question : Do people WANT to KNOW???

or would they prefer to live in their world of self constructed illusions??

or are they too afraid/reluctant to face some harsh truths??? (about their own Gov't and themselves too)


random poll:

Who (on this forum ) WANTS to know the real truth??

Who (on this forum ) prefers to simply go with the flow of bush version of "truth". (ie spin/distortions)

YT: WANT to KNOW the truth.......no matter how painful. Not to chastize the US........but to simply KNOW . It is the lies, spin that can be reasonably condemned /chastized and criticized. Truth is truth.
 
jimmoyer

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
This ole box I live in, mildewy, just about so soggy from the baked beans I eat every day has a window in it because I punched my fist through and this box almost collapsed in a weak watery way all around me more like a wet tent.

I do not like my box.
I do not like my box anymore.
I do not like what I see out my box window either.
I do not like me in my box.
Hey !! What are YOU looking at?
Yeah you, buddy.
Oh?
Got nothin' to say?
Well, git then.
 
Jo Canadian

Jo Canadian

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

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Friday 1st July 2005 (00h52) :
Tony Blair Confirms Authenticity of Downing Street Memo-51 Congressmembers File FOIA Request
3 comment(s).
SAN STEFFAN / WESTMINSTER DATGANIAD I’R WASG PLAID CYMRU THE PARTY OF WALES PRESS RELEASE Wednesday 29 June 2005 - for immediate release
The Prime Minister has confirmed the authenticity of a Downing Street memo in which Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, tells Mr Blair that the Bush administration was "fixing" the intelligence and facts about Saddam Hussein’s regime to back up a decision that had been taken to invade Iraq as early as July 2002.

The Downing Street memo which was leaked to the Sunday Times newspaper in May 2005 has become a critical issue in the US. Senators Kennedy and Kerry have joined the escalating debate by writing to the President asking whether or not the memo was authentic and accurate. Downing Street has previously refused to comment on the memo’s authenticity, but challenged for the first time on the floor of the House of Commons the Prime Minister has finally confirmed its authenticity.

Speaking after Prime Minister’s Questions, Adam Price MP said:

"The confirmation that the memo is authentic will cause ripples throughout the United States where 122 Members of the US Congress have written to the President asking if Sir Richard Dearlove’s statement in the memo, that ’the intelligence and the facts are being fixed around the policy’ is correct.

"I challenged the Prime Minister on whether Sir Richard Dearlove was a reliable intelligence source, and if so, could he confirm whether his statement was an accurate assessment of the Bush administration’s intentions and actions. In his answer, the Prime Minister refuses to distance himself from the assessment made by the former head of MI6 and simply goes on to say resolution 1441 changed the position. I fail to see how this is relevant to my question.

"Today is a significant step forward in establishing the truth about the US and UK’s policy to invade Iraq. However difficult it proves to extract information about the war from the government, the Prime Minister must be held to account by Parliament, and the President must be held to account by Congress."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/590


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Representative John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member, along with 51 other Members today submitted a broad and comprehensive FOIA request to the White House, the Department of Defense, and the Department of State seeking any and all documents and materials concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the lead up to the Iraq war, RAW STORY has learned.

In addition, the Members also formally requested that the House Committees on Judiciary, Armed Services, International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence commence hearings on the Downing Street Minutes.

"This is the next stage of the Downing Street investigation and brings the investigation to a new more and more aggressive stage," one Democratic Judiciary aide said.
Click to expand...
 
Ocean Breeze

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050704/pl_afp/usbritainiraqbush

more bush ...um.....spin.

Mon Jul 4, 5:11 PM ET



LONDON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush said in an interview that Iraq's most-wanted man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had entered the country prior to the US-led invasion in March 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

"I beg your pardon, Zarqawi -- Mr. Zarqawi, who is leading the terrorist effort in Iraq -- was in Iraq prior" to the US-led war, he told Britain's ITV television after being asked whether the invasion enabled such insurgents to run amok in the country.

Jordanian-born Zarqawi, who has a 25-million-dollar US bounty on his head, is blamed for some of the deadliest attacks in Iraq.

Despite the violence that rocks the country on a daily basis, the US leader was confident of success.

"I believe that we will succeed in Iraq," Bush said in the interview with the private British television channel, which was recorded on Saturday.

"I am absolutely confident that we made the right decision, it was the right thing to do."
Click to expand...
 
Ocean Breeze

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
It's imperialism, stupid
NOAM CHOMSKY


4 July 2005


IN his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as anticipated, the invasion increased the threat of terror, perhaps significantly.

Half-truths, misinformation and hidden agendas have characterised official pronouncements about US war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.

In 2002 the US and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also the sole basis on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force.

The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted new pretexts and justifications for going to war.

"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked."

Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty ... that required patently untrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have deepened the record of deceit.

The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq.

The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."

British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to provoke Iraq into some act that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."

Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 — 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons).

"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote.

The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For US-UK planners, invading Iraq was a far higher priority than the "war on terror." That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence agencies. On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York Times last September. In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." The willingness of top planners to risk increase of terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such outcomes. Rather, they are simply not a high priority in comparison with other objectives, such as controlling the world's major energy resources.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region." If the United States can maintain its control over Iraq, with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the heart of the world's major energy supplies, that will enhance significantly its strategic power and influence over its major rivals in the tripolar world that has been taking shape for the past 30 years: US-dominated North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, linked to South and Southeast Asia economies.

It is a rational calculation, on the assumption that human survival is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power and wealth. And that is nothing new. These themes resonate through history. The difference today in this age of nuclear weapons is only that the stakes are enormously higher.
Click to expand...


editorial : LYING BASTARDS. :twisted: If the US population is content with this........then it speaks volumes about the population/culture itself. The lack of integrety is appalling..

( an advanced/progressive nation??? only in THEIR minds. , Most see the US for what it really is now. )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom