The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

Scruffy wrote: So, according to this opinion piece, they found remnants of chemical weapons labs which were destroyed in the first Gulf War. They found 550 metric tons of degraded yellowcake uranium, which may not have been suitable for manufacturing weapons. When this comes out in other media outlets, reputable media, then I will believe it. They will also have to demonstrate that the destroyed chemical weapon facilities were capable of being used to manufacture WMD's and that the yellowcake was of sufficient quality to actually make bombs.

n

I see, sneer at the source and mock the data which supposedly sources previously classified documents.

Liberals really are sheep. :Whistle

http://rightwingnews.com/2010/12/new-re ... s-sheeple/

"In a new study, UNL researchers measured both liberals' and conservatives' reaction to "gaze cues" -- a person's tendency to shift attention in a direction consistent with another person's eye movements, even if it's irrelevant to their current task -- and found big differences between the two groups.

Liberals responded strongly to the prompts, consistently moving their attention in the direction suggested to them by a face on a computer screen. Conservatives, on the other hand, did not."

I see... So you have no answer to the FACTS that were posted about Bush's lies to get us into the wars, but will go with the crap posted in a conservative opinion piece... Got it.

I posted the links that totally DESTROY the claims that "they found chemical traces", but of course, none of the Righties wants to take the time to read them if they can find one rightwing opinion-piece that says otherwise...

"Washington Post" newspaper article (USA)
Title: "U.S. had key role in Iraq build up"
Author: Michael Dobbs
Date: 30 Dec 2002
Page: front page

Extracts:

"Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds"

"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally."

"Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions."

"The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.'"

...

"A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

"Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Chemical weapons abandoned in 1991

The ISG report also concluded that whatever chemical weapons (CW) program Iraq maintained was apparently abandoned long before the US invasion.

A National Intelligence Estimate prepared last October warned that the Iraqi regime had renewed production of mustard, sarin and VX agents, and “probably has stocked” 100 to 500 tons of chemical weaponry, “much of it added in the past year.”

But Kay told the congressional intelligence committee: “Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991.”

He added: “Information found to date suggests that Iraq’s large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new [chemical] munitions was reduced—if not entirely destroyed—during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections,” Kay said.

This assessment stands as an indictment not only of the claims made by the Bush administration in launching the war last March, but also of the trumped-up WMD charges made by the Clinton White House in 1998 before launching cruise missile attacks on Baghdad.

The sole physical evidence of WMD material that the 1,200-person army of US inspectors could claim to have found was a single vial of botulinum in the home of an Iraqi scientist. In the run-up to the war, US officials claimed ominously that Iraq had stockpiled 38,000 liters of the toxin. The report also claimed that the ISG had discovered equipment and elements of laboratories as well as the ashes of burned documents, the material that Blix referred to as “minor proscribed items and debris.”

As to the tons of anthrax, ricin, mustard gas, VX and other deadly substances that Washington maintained were present in Iraq, the ISG has found not a trace.

so, explain clintoon's, kerry, and a bunch of others remarks about WMD's before bush took office, and don't spin it!

Bush was NOT vindicated, and he LIED us into two unnecessary wars...and there WERE NO WMDs... But thanks for playing.

US intelligence report shows war drive against Iran based on lies
by Bill Van Auken
Global Research, December 5, 2007

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=7553


IRAQ - A WAR BASED ON LIES
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=371

SOURCES:

BBC News, "Iraq verdict fills papers", 8 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3053438.stm ]

BBC News, "White House 'warned over Iraq claim'", 9 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3056626.stm ]

BBC News, "Bush under fire over Iraq claims", 9 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3051963.stm ]

BBC News, "CIA 'cleared' Iraq uranium claim", 11 July 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 058809.stm ]

FURTHER READING:

The Debate - "Iraq War Motives"
[ [url=http://www.thedebate.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.thedebate.org[/url] ]

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
Friday, 15 December 2006

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 28545.html



http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-vann061003.htm



http://www.bushwatch.org/bushlies.htm

---

Eric_E_Johansson_President_San_Francisco_Veterans_ for_Peace_Chapter_69:

KAY’S CLEVERNESS: THE TRUTH BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH’S LIES

Do you understand the cleverness of behind the report by David Kay, a Bush appointee in charge of hunting for the absent Weapons of Mass Destruction that he confirmed didn't exist in Iraq which was Mr. Bush's stated reason (now exposed as lies) to take this nation to war? What Mr. Kay did was quite clever but some of his conclusions were also clearly misleading.

Mr. Kay’s report revealed that no Weapons of Mass Destruction could be found in Iraq and that there likely were none since the U.N., inspectors like Scott Ritter and the CIA all did their jobs correctly in the disarming process that occurred during the 1990’s. This fact was revealed by many writers prior to the war although they were ignored as Bush lied the country into supporting an unnecessary, unjust and immoral war that claimed thousands of lives and now over 525 American troops for nothing, nothing except for perhaps the 63% earnings increase at Halliburton or the 93% earnings increase at Chevron/Texaco.

By telling the truth, Mr. Kay had hoped to establish some measure of credibility and honesty that his word and his report to Congress were both rooted in integrity. Certainly, when he told the truth about the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that did give him some measure of credibility, however, then he pointed his finger at U.S. intelligence (the CIA) as the culprit by faulting their intelligence gathering capability. In making such an accusation what Mr. Kay has tried to do is use the credibility he has earned by telling the truth about the lack of WMD to make a case for implicating intelligence agencies for the excuse Bush used to go to war. And this is how the Kay report is clever and partially honest but also clearly misleading and partially deceitful: The intelligence was not bad intelligence, it was cooked intelligence, cooked to support a decision to go to war that had already been made. This intelligence was cooked because of the pressure exerted by Vice President Dick Cheney as he periodically made visits to apply pressure upon mid-level analysts at CIA headquarters, demanding that they produce evidence, no matter how weak, that would support his decision to wage an unnecessary, unjust and immoral war that in the end killed thousands, our own troops and left us in a deepening quagmire of President Bush’s own making.

The cleverness of the David Kay is clear: He is using the credibility that he earned by telling the truth contained within the findings of his report, he is using that measure of credibility to implicate the CIA for their mistaken evidence which was cooked by the Vice President to drum up support for the war in the first place. Thus, ultimately no blame should be assigned to those mid-level personnel or any intelligence apparatus or agency who came under enormous pressure to cook up intelligence to build support for the war as per the Vice President office, an extension of President Bush’s office.

Where should blame be placed? First upon the shoulders of President Bush for allowing the Vice President to act in such an unethical, dictatorial and ruthless manner that led to the needless deaths of a lot of people, many of them American soldiers. Second, upon the shoulders of President Bush for then using such obvious cooked intelligence to drum up support for a war based on the obvious lies he told the American people almost daily. Third, blame should also be placed squarely on the shoulders on CIA Director George Tenet for allowing such behavior by the Vice-President at his agency and for allowing outright lies to be told to the American people without even having even a morsel of moral courage to come forward and reveal the inner acts of betrayal and treason being committed by President Bush or Vice President Cheney. By not coming forward and by allowing such behavior to go unchecked, Director George Tenet betrayed the CIA, he betrayed the integrity of U.S. intelligence and he betrayed the troops who would later die, and he betrayed the American people. His political head should nowadays be served upon a platter. Also at fault is the entire senior management team at the CIA for the very same reasons that their Director is at fault. By not coming forward and by allowing such behavior to go unchecked, I consider every senior manager at the CIA to be a modern-day Benedict Arnold, traitors to America, traitors to the troops and traitors to the American people. I do not fault the CIA but I do clearly fault their management, the Directorship, and above all the President of the United States George W. Bush for his lies, manipulations and betrayal that sent good troops to their graves for nothing but the greed of money, power and domination. You are all cowardly insignificant yellow-belly traitors as far as I’m concerned.

Now, as President Bush appoints and tries to bury the truth by selecting members of his Whitewash Commission to conceal his lies and betrayal to the troops, to America and to the American people, I have but one question for you Mr. Bush, how does it feel to be exposed as the low, cowardly, yellow-belly, misleading, war-mongering, mass-murdering, troops-murdering lying piece of human [fecal material] that you are, sir?

Your needless war which is now sinking-into-a-bloody-civil-war-occupation of Iraq is becoming costly isn’t it sir? It has been transformed from a political asset in a political liability, hasn’t it Mr. Bush?
I have only two words for you Bush: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!! Now eat it.

Long-term implications: Good-bye military industrial complex, you're outta here!!!!!!

---

74. 'Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report on the Activities of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Defense, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence', October 2, 2003, http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s ... 22003.html .

75. "Newsmaker: David Kay," News Hour with Jim Lehrer, PBS TV, October 2, 2003, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_e ... 10-02.html .

76. Michael R. Gordon, "Weapons Of Mass Confusion," New York Times on the Web, August 1, 2003. See also Associated Press "Air Force Assessment Before War Said Iraqi Drones Were Minor Threat: U.S. arms experts in Iraq came to same conclusion," Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2003; David Rogers, "Air Force Doubts Drone Threat: Report Says Bush Exaggerated Perils of Unmanned Iraqi Aircraft," Wall Street Journal, September 10, 2003; Joseph Cirincione and Alexis Orton, "The Air Force Dissents," Carnegie Analysis, September 11, 2003, http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/tem ... wsID=5346; Bradley Graham, "Air Force Analysts Feel Vindicated On Iraqi Drones," Washington Post, September 26, 2003, p. 23.

77. Walter Pincus, "Intelligence Report For Iraq War Was 'Hastily Done'," Washington Post, October 24, 2003, p. 18.

78. Thomas Patrick Carroll, "The Intelligence on Iraq's WMD," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 11, November 2003, http://www.meib.org/articles/0311_iraq1.htm .

79. William M. Arkin, "A Thin Basis For War," Los Angeles Times, July 27, 2003.

80. Jay Taylor, "When Intelligence Reports Become Political Tools . . .," Washington Post, June 29, 2003, p. B2.

84. New York Times, James Risen and Douglas Jehl, "Expert Said to Tell Legislators He Was Pressed to Distort Some Evidence," June 25, 2003.

85. Jason Vest, "The 'Intelligence' Game," The Nation, June 30, 2003, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=vest . See also John Prados, "Iraq: A necessary war?" Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, May/June 2003, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 26-33, http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2003/ ... rados.html .

86. Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas, "Cheney's Long Path to War: The Hard Sell: He sifted intelligence." He brooded about threats. And he wanted Saddam gone. "The inside story of how Vice President Cheney bought into shady assumptions and helped persuade a nation to invade Iraq," Newsweek, Nov. 17. 2003.

117. Nancy Gibbs and Michael Ware, "Chasing A Mirage: The U.S. was sure Saddam had WMD, but Iraqi scientists tell TIME the weapons were destroyed long before the war," Time, October 6, 2003, p. 38.

136. Andrew Gumbel "Case for war confected, say top US officials," Independent, 09 November 2003.

LadyJazzer wrote: I posted the links that totally DESTROY the claims that "they found chemical traces", but of course, none of the Righties wants to take the time to read them if they can find one rightwing opinion-piece that says otherwise...

]

Your links predate the new information that is alleged to be in the Wikileaks dump.

This is why we went to war, you libs wanted war and got it, you libs claimed Iraq had WMD's, Bush acted on your intel, yet you claim he lied, clintoon was in office before bush, yet you claimed bush lied about WMD's, all the while you libs were screaming from the roof tops, Iraq has WMD's, Iraq has WMD's..the sky is falling! but thanks for playing, who knew!

Pelosi says WMD's in Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOs ... re=related

Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Hillary CLINTON ON WMD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp6YmEevHE0

WMD's in Iraq in Democrats own words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og ... re=related

LJ, everything you have said about bush is a lie, these video clips prove that, you're a liberal shrill with so much hate towards any republican that you can't see straight. No wonder you libs are going down in 2012.

revisionist history is such fun.....enjoy.

neptunechimney wrote:

Scruffy wrote: So, according to this opinion piece, they found remnants of chemical weapons labs which were destroyed in the first Gulf War. They found 550 metric tons of degraded yellowcake uranium, which may not have been suitable for manufacturing weapons. When this comes out in other media outlets, reputable media, then I will believe it. They will also have to demonstrate that the destroyed chemical weapon facilities were capable of being used to manufacture WMD's and that the yellowcake was of sufficient quality to actually make bombs.

n

I see, sneer at the source and mock the data which supposedly sources previously classified documents.

Liberals really are sheep. :Whistle

http://rightwingnews.com/2010/12/new-re ... s-sheeple/

"In a new study, UNL researchers measured both liberals' and conservatives' reaction to "gaze cues" -- a person's tendency to shift attention in a direction consistent with another person's eye movements, even if it's irrelevant to their current task -- and found big differences between the two groups.

Liberals responded strongly to the prompts, consistently moving their attention in the direction suggested to them by a face on a computer screen. Conservatives, on the other hand, did not."

Let's say I'm strongly suspect that this guy is spinning the information. I have not looked at the wikileaks documents he is citing, but from the article, he's not exactly forthcoming.

It's almost as if those who want to believe that Bush should be vindicated see the article as impartial and proof that his decisions were correct. But then, that would make those people sheeple.

Perhaps when more information on these documents comes out and they have been evaluated in the impartial light of day, rather than an opinion piece, then I will take them more seriously.

neptunechimney wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: I posted the links that totally DESTROY the claims that "they found chemical traces", but of course, none of the Righties wants to take the time to read them if they can find one rightwing opinion-piece that says otherwise...

]

Your links predate the new information that is alleged to be in the Wikileaks dump.

It doesn't matter. They will never believe or understand. They will just keep quoting and posting the same things from 7 or 8 years ago and then YELLING IT IN ALL CAPS LIKE WE WILL BELIEVE THEM MORE THAT WAY!! :bash They hate facts and always will. Look at most of the sources. The bbc and many liberal blogs and many liberal type media organiations.