Bush knew Saddam didnt possess WMD.

#1
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

"The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fcuk about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."
You bet he didn't. Bush, Cheney, other neo cons and a lot of anti war people were of the exact same mind on this. Saddam owned NO WMD.


According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
So at risk to their own health, soldiers were required to take shots that supposedly protected them against 'weapons of mass destruction' that those who sent them to war knew didn't exist.
Everyday, the prospect of war crimes trials gets a little closer.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
 
#2
I thought we'd already accepted this to be pretty much the case anyway?

EDIT: I meant I thought we'd already figured that WMD's were not in Iraq, not that War Crimes will be levied against Bush and Co.
 
#3
goodkurtz said:
Everyday, the prospect of war crimes trials gets a little closer.
You really think so? When was the last time the Septics even bothered to turn up to give evidence at a foreign tribunal (eg a UK inquest), never mind hand one of theirs over for prosecution?

If one happens, which I really doubt, it will be in absentia and the US will refuse to recognise the validity of the court. It may mean that the individuals concerned cannot leave the US but that doesn't seem to bother most of them, anyway.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#4
goodkurtz said:
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

"The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fcuk about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."
You bet he didn't. Bush, Cheney, other neo cons and a lot of anti war people were of the exact same mind on this. Saddam owned NO WMD.


According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Yet the pretence had to be maintained. So at risk to their own health, soldiers were required to take shots that supposedly protected them against 'weapons of mass destruction' that those who sent them to war knew didn't exist.
Everyday, the prospect of war crimes trials gets a little closer.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
As repeatedly stated, detailed and validated by Richard Clarke (Senior White House security advisor for 11 years and 3 presidents) at the time - to fall on death ears on both sides of the pond....
 
#6
Alsacien said:
goodkurtz said:
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

"The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fcuk about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."
You bet he didn't. Bush, Cheney, other neo cons and a lot of anti war people were of the exact same mind on this. Saddam owned NO WMD.


According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.
Yet the pretence had to be maintained. So at risk to their own health, soldiers were required to take shots that supposedly protected them against 'weapons of mass destruction' that those who sent them to war knew didn't exist.
Everyday, the prospect of war crimes trials gets a little closer.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
As repeatedly stated, detailed and validated by Richard Clarke (Senior White House security advisor for 11 years and 3 presidents) at the time - to fall on death ears on both sides of the pond....
:evil: :evil: :evil: W.M.D no way OIL.OIL. OIL. MONEY ,MONEY, MONEY :evil: :evil: :evil:
 
#7
The_Goon said:
I thought we'd already accepted this to be pretty much the case anyway?

EDIT: I meant I thought we'd already figured that WMD's were not in Iraq, not that War Crimes will be levied against Bush and Co.
Not quite the point my man. Usable evidence is now coming to light that G.W. Bush knew there was no WMD in Iraq at the time he was telling us that there was in order to solicit the public's support for an invasion.

Lying is different from being mistaken.
 
#9
There is historiv precedent for this; both an Arnhem and the Crossing of the Rhine Montgomery ignored rock solid intelligence for the sake of his ego, which cost people their lives. And the difference in 2003 and now is?
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#10
I think it was a bit more simplistic than we realise. I have read a couple of first hand accounts by senior white house and security people and they seem to share a common conclusion.

9/11 hurt America deeply - all the strength and power and security felt by all Americans was torn apart when the towers fell. This was replaced by the shock of experiencing conflict on US soil for the first time in living memory. Fear that everyone was vulnerable no matter how powerful the military machine - and most of all, a basic human need to strike back at what hurt you.
Even if Osama bin Laden had been caught (no-one seems bothered about him any more???), tried and fried, it would not have been enough payback. It was also not possible to blame the Saudi Arabian nation for the actions of their citizens for reasons of oil/politics/call it what you will.
Nothing less than the destruction of an entire country was going to suffice.
Clarke describes the discussions on 9/12 when a plan to attack Iraq was rolled out for discussion, his failure to see the relevance and the closing of ranks around Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney despite the facts.

Perhaps if the US had applied the same committment and vigour to routing out Al Qaeda and Osama et al rather than the ill-concieved Iraq invasion, things would be different now in terms of world terrorism - not to mention the 100% international support this would have generated for the US and the anti-terror ideal.
 
#12
Idrach said:
goodkurtz said:
Everyday, the prospect of war crimes trials gets a little closer.
You really think so? When was the last time the Septics even bothered to turn up to give evidence at a foreign tribunal (eg a UK inquest), never mind hand one of theirs over for prosecution?

If one happens, which I really doubt, it will be in absentia and the US will refuse to recognise the validity of the court. It may mean that the individuals concerned cannot leave the US but that doesn't seem to bother most of them, anyway.
Dear Idrach, one has to start thinking a little further into the future by now.
The American people themselves will come to want war crimes trials as a way of cleaning out their own stables for the good of their own society. And to be seen to be doing so in the public arena in an attempt to restore America's reputation in eyes of the world.

Then there will be the external presure from the international community.
Inside five to ten years America might very well be under the same presure it put Iraq and now Iran to come clean and get legally sorted its own crimes.
What goes around, comes around. Don't be fooled by the illusion of America's invinciple power. The U.S. is now running on empty.

The neo cons running the show know this but don't care. To the utter despair of increasing amounts of American citizens the neo cons seem to be on a roll that can't be stopped. They will try and kick the day of reckoning further down the road.

And they will do this by attacking Iran. And as they do that, William Kristol's grin will grow even wider.
 
#13
Hmm. No, I don't think war crimes will ever be levied against Bush & Co. Because, although they may well have lied about WMDs, Bush, as CinC, had the right to start the war and also he could argue that it was still worth it to get rid of Saddam.

War Crimes for Bush & Co? Goodkurtz, you need a reality check, mein freunc! :D
 
#14
Alsacien said:
Nothing less than the destruction of an entire country was going to suffice.
They had already done this in Afghanistan. Iraq was pure Willy Waving.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#15
western said:
Alsacien said:
Nothing less than the destruction of an entire country was going to suffice.
They had already done this in Afghanistan. Iraq was pure Willy Waving.
Nobody in the US knew where Afganistan was, so it could not count.

Iraq on the other hand, had previously been in the news (including maps) in '91, and was known to the proletariat to be run by a "bad man".
 
#16
The_Goon said:
Hmm. No, I don't think war crimes will ever be levied against Bush & Co. Because, although they may well have lied about WMDs, Bush, as CinC, had the right to start the war and also he could argue that it was still worth it to get rid of Saddam.

War Crimes for Bush & Co? Goodkurtz, you need a reality check, mein freunc! :D
No you do. Look at how many rising nations there are who would benefit from America being shamed and mired in war crimes trials.
Even as we speak, in legal departments throughout the world war crimes indictments are being compilied as dissertation work by hundreds of post grads.

Too many people labour under the misbelief that America can get away with international war crimes because it is so powerful.
At one time, like the British Empire before it this may have been so.

But that only happened because those nations against whom we committed crimes were always weak.
Times are changing. And even if some of these nations still remain weak they will find themselves gaining new powerful allies all to ready to help the weaker nation gain redress from the now fading alpha lion.

We are all equal under the law. No one is above it. Its even written in the American constituition that this is so.

Ed. for spelling.
 
#18
I'm not getting into an argument on this topic, we'll just wait and see what happens. My personal opinion and belief is that Bush & Co. will not be charged with war crimes.
 
#19
goodkurtz said:
We are all equal under the law. No one is above it. Its even written in the American constituition that this is so.
:D :D :D

Good one mate! Haven't laughed so much for a while.
 
#20
If, and it's a bif if, the septics decide that war crime trials are in order, it would merely be in the form of an internal whitewash with the protagonists, at worse, receiving a slap on the wrist combined with a ' now don't do it again' :roll:

If (bigger if) the UK decided to follow suit with His Tonyness he could just stick with his claim 'God made me do it'. Think that's how he refers to Dubya anyway :)

Edited for bratty finger spelling
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top