What do you think about the newly released Iraqi documents? Did Bush really Lie? ************************************************** 03-26-06, 10:32 AM Scotty Ref.
quote: A bombshell Iraqi intelligence document detailing a 1995 pact between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to conduct "joint operations" against the U.S. proves that Saddam Hussein "would collaborate with people who would do our country harm," former 9/11 Commission member, Bob Kerrey said Friday.
"This is a very significant set of facts," Kerrey told the New York Sun.
03-26-06, 12:25 PM newnickname "A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio...
...This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. abcnews.go.com
We already knew that there had been talks and contacts between Al Qaeda and Hussein's government. The document confirms that Hussein knew about these talks, and that he was - in 1995 - at least seriously interested in cooperation. The talks mentioned '"joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia', and eight months later 'terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.', but it's not clear that Iraq was involved.
As Kerrey says, the documents don't link Hussein to 9/11. Implying that link (although he now denies that he ever did) was Bush's lie. Bush did not ask for support for the war on the basis of inconclusive ten-year-old discussions, and inflammatory radio shows.
03-26-06, 12:27 PM DorianGreyed Scotty, I hope you don't mind if I wait until a reputable news source covers this "story." Newsmax is just a small step above the kind of checkout line rags that feature Batboy, pregnant-by-an-alien country girls, Elvis sightings at KMart, and the like. Every now and then, Newsmax has a story in which a well-known Democrats says something that is not in line with general Democrat beliefs. No links are offered to show any type of proof of wht they say, and the "story" dies there.
Some of Newsmax's stories are listed in Wikipedia -
On November 29, 2005 Newsmax was the source of a rumor that John McCain himself validated the use of torture. This accusation was then picked up and repeated by Rush Limbaugh.[12] Newsmax specifically claimed:
"Sen. John McCain is leading the charge against so-called “torture” techniques allegedly used by U.S. interrogators, insisting that practices like sleep deprivation and withholding medical attention are not only brutal – they simply don’t work to persuade terrorist suspects to give accurate information."
"Nearly forty years ago, however – when McCain was held captive in a North Vietnamese prison camp – some of the same techniques were used on him. And – as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice – the torture worked!"
The article contradicts itself by demonstrating that torture does not provide intelligence:
"For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards . . . Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 1/2 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope."
"McCain was taken to an interrogation room and ordered to sign a document confessing to war crimes. "I signed it," he recalled. "It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities." [13] --- Another example occurred on June 5, 2005 when in a subscription only email. NewsMax correspondent John LeBoutillier, interviewed Ed Klein, and "LeBoutillier writes" Klien's book will reveal Daniel Moynihan's (who died in 2003) alleged resistance to Clinton's candidacy:
"Still, a few months later Hillary got what she wanted: the prized photo op at the Moynihan's upstate farm. Oddly, Pat Moynihan never uttered Hillary's name -- not even once -- during this event. He could not bring himself to mention Hillary by name -- but the press reported his 'endorsement' just the same."[10]
and yet a July 7, 1999 CNN interview with Pat Moynihan (who was deceased by the time of the 2005 Newsmax article and so could not provide a rebuttal of their claims himself):
"Moynihan: Before you do -- before I do, and, my God, I almost forgot -- yesterday, Hillary Clinton established an exploratory committee as regards candidacy for the Senate, United States Senate, from New York, a seat which I will vacate in a year and a half. I'm here to say that I hope she will go all the way. I mean to go all the way with her. I think she's going to win. I think it's going to be wonderful for New York, and we'll be proud of our senator and the nation will notice."[11] --- On May 26th 2001 Newsmax started an urban myth about Hillary Clinton reapeatedly refusing to meet with the Gold Star Mothers, a group whose members are mothers who have lost children while serving in the military. [9] --- On October 29, 2005 Newsmax published an article which claimed that "Patrick Fitzgerald Retreats From Plame 'Covert' Claim." The article commented that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:
"declined to bring any charges to that effect, casting even more doubt on the claim that her (Valerie Wilson) CIA job was a closely guarded secret."[14]
Yet, in the October 28, 2005 Federal indictment of Scooter Libby, page 3, section f stated:
"At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."[15]
Moreover, the indictment page 2, section b stated:
"LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292)"[16]
And Title 18, Section 793 is the Espionage Act. -------- Apparently, Nesmax publishes fiction as well as "news."
03-26-06, 12:33 PM newnickname DG - actually it seems to be an ABC news story, to which Newsmax has added its own "bombshell" spin.
03-26-06, 12:35 PM DorianGreyed Below from Media Matters -
The Washington Times pushed NewsMax.com Kerry rumor
On June 2, The Washington Times picked up a May 31 "Inside Cover Story" published on the right-wing website NewsMax.com by former U.S. Representative John Leboutillier (R-NY) claiming that Senator John Kerry "flipped off" Vietnam veteran Ted Sampley during Memorial Day ceremonies at the Vietnam Memorial Wall.
From NewsMax.com:
Kerry then began talking to a group of schoolchildren. Sampley then showed the T-shirt to the children and said, "Kerry does not belong at the Wall because he betrayed the brave soldiers who fought in Vietnam."
Just then Kerry -- in front of the school children, other visitors and Secret Service agents -- brazenly 'flashed the bird' at Sampley and then yelled out to everyone, "Sampley is a felon!"
The cameras of CNN and many networks were at the event and did not report the alleged incident.
Sampley has been described by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) as "one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter." For years, Sampley hounded McCain as a "Manchurian Candidate" -- claiming that the decorated veteran and former prisoner of war was a communist agent -- resulting in a conviction for misdemeanor assault related to an attack by Sampley on one of McCain's legislative aides. Sampley is also the leader of a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.
Leboutillier is one of the chief architects of the Counter Clinton Library, which describes its purpose as "a permanent thorn in the side of the Clintons as they try to hide and distort their anti-American, anti-family, anti-military legacy." Leboutillier is also the author of an article titled "Condit: Gays, Bisexuals, and Murder," in which he recounted rumor and innuendo regarding former U.S. Representative Gary Condit (D-CA) and federal intern Chandra Levy, who was reported missing in May 2001 and was later found dead.
Radio host Rush Limbaugh related the story to his audience on his June 1 Rush Limbaugh Show broadcast, stating as fact the details of the article (though he acknowledged that the NewsMax.com story was his only source).
From the June 1 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
John Kerry -- the presumed assumptive, maybe, Democratic presidential nominee -- flipped the bird to a Vietnam veteran at the Vietnam memorial wall yesterday morning. It was Ted Sampley.
Along with the transcript of Limbaugh's June 1 broadcast (headline: "Charismatic Dud Flips Vietnam Vet the Bird!"), Limbaugh posted on his website a photograph of Kerry speaking at a podium, holding his hand aloft. Limbaugh blurred and pixelated the image of Kerry's hand -- as if to obscure Kerry's raised middle finger -- and captioned the photo "EIB Photo Montage." ["EIB" stands for Limbaugh's Excellence in Broadcasting Network.]
Is Sampley one of you dining buddies?
03-26-06, 12:42 PM Scotty If you have been keeping up with the news, Newsmax is only one of the sources that is reporting this news. You will be hearing more and more of it in days to come. Wink Someone said today the the liberals will be trying their best to shoot holes in the absolute truth, but it will not last long as facts begin to come out. Stay tuned! It will be hard to brush off. Big Grin
quote: What the captured documents show Mar 24, 2006 by Mona Charen ( bio | archive | contact )
Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A President Bush has made errors, as all humans do, but one thing he has not been guilty of is bad faith. The same cannot be said of his critics.
One thinks of those liberals and Democrats who accused President Bush of "lying" about weapons of mass destruction and about ties between al Qaeda and Iraq particularly now, because last week, after an unaccountable delay of three years, the administration declassified and released thousands of documents captured from Saddam's regime. They offer more proof of what we've already learned from other sources: that Hussein was in collusion with al Qaeda; that he did instruct his people on hiding evidence of WMDs; and that he did support worldwide terror.
Using the standards NewsMax itself applies to the New York Times, absolutely. -------- The article above, by conwebwatch, lists a series of Newsmax "stories" that either mis-represent reality, make it up, or simply ignore it. The "News"" on Pat Robertson's show is more accurate than NewsMax.
03-26-06, 12:48 PM Scotty
quote: What, then, will they make of the newly released documents that reinforce the alleged connections between Saddam and terrorists, and suggest Clinton was right all along?
Obviously, they're a plant. An attempt to deflect Censure Fever, now sweeping the nation. More lies from the people who said Saddam had WMD, when we all know the Kurds died from bad catered shellfish. More crafty Rovian disinformation, brilliantly leaked three years too late with as much fanfare as a straight-to-video "Deuce Bigalow" movie.
So far, decrypting the documents has been up to Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard, the occasional ABC story and intrepid wingnut bloggers. Among other tasty tidbits, the documents suggest Saddam was shoveling money to a Philippine Islamist al-Qaida franchise — Abu Sayyaf, Al-Angry, Al-Roker, something or other.
Nonsense, some Bush critics insist. Saddam was relentlessly secular! He hated the Islamists!
quote: Newly released document links Saddam to al-Qaida (Free Republic mention/link) WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/17/06 | WorldNetDaily
Posted on 03/17/2006 3:49:47 AM PST by pookie18
Indicates regime was cooperating with bin Laden group to strike U.S.
Saddam Hussein on Iraqi TV prior to the war Among the pre-war documents posted online yesterday by the Pentagon is a letter from a member of Saddam's intelligence apparatus indicating al-Qaida and the Taliban had a relationship with the regime prior to the 9-11 attacks.
The letter by the member of Saddam's Al Mukabarat to a superior, dated Sept. 15, 2001, reports a pre-9/11 conversation between an Iraqi intelligence source and a Taliban Afghani consul.
The documents were released yesterday at the direction of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
quote: Today, the Times concedes that the Defense Intelligence Agency is in possession of a document showing that, in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service reached out to what the newspaper euphemistically calls "Mr. bin Laden's organization" (more on that below) regarding the possibility of joint efforts against the Saudi regime, which was then hosting U.S. forces. To be clear, the document records that it was Iraq which initiated the contacts, and that bin Laden finally agreed to discuss cooperation only after having spurned previous overtures because he "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative[.]"
quote: That's what this is about. And who knows what else the Times is not telling us? REF>
03-26-06, 01:03 PM newnickname But we already knew that this kind of contact occurred.
2004: 'WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday insisted Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al Qaeda, contradicting an independent commission's report that there is no evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's militant Islamist network.
After meeting with members of his Cabinet, Bush forcefully disputed findings from the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that had called into question one of his main justifications for the U.S. war on Iraq.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," he told reporters.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda," Bush said. "There were numerous contacts between the two."
A staff report by the bipartisan commission said on Wednesday that Bin Laden had "explored possible cooperation with Iraq ... despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime."
But it said Iraq never responded to the al Qaeda overtures and concluded that "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
It added, "Two senior bin Laden associates adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."
Bush and other administration officials cited what they called cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda, as well as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as reasons for last year's invasion of the country. No banned weapons have been found.
Analysts have long questioned suggestions of close links between bin Laden and Saddam, whom the al Qaeda leader has described as an "infidel" and who killed or suppressed many Islamic leaders in his own country to cement his grip on power.
The administration has recently renewed allegations of an Iraqi link with al Qaeda, blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech on Monday, "He (Saddam) had long established ties with al Qaeda."
On Thursday, Bush continued to insist that Saddam had numerous contacts with al Qaeda and other militant groups opposed to the United States.
"We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaida, in the Sudan," he said.
The commission report, however, said that while he was in Sudan in the 1990s "Bin Laden is said to have requested space (in Iraq) to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded."' www.boston.com
The recently translated documents give us more detail, for sure, on the ups and downs of relations between al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq in 1995, but they don't provide justification for launching a war. Beyond one radio show, they don't offer evidence of a 'collaborative relationship'.
03-26-06, 01:07 PM DorianGreyed Maybe the Evil Clintons got to Kerrey and threatened to expose him as having dated a thespian unless he recanted the Saddam/Osama link. That sounds like a story Newsmax could run with.
03-26-06, 01:23 PM Scotty
quote: The recently translated documents give us more detail, for sure, on the ups and downs of relations between al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq in 1995, but they don't provide justification for launching a war. Beyond one radio show, they don't offer evidence of a 'collaborative relationship'.
Of course not! With some people there is no justification for war. You are the ones that would let an invading army come in without a shot fired.
03-26-06, 01:24 PM Scotty
quote: Maybe the Evil Clintons got to Kerrey and threatened to expose him as having dated a thespian unless he recanted the Saddam/Osama link. That sounds like a story Newsmax could run
Sorry, but there is no getting out of this one, and there is more to come. Wink
03-26-06, 01:37 PM newnickname
quote: You are the ones that would let an invading army come in without a shot fired.
Iraq did not have the ability to invade its neighbours, let alone the US. Hussein's government didn't even have the military ability to control large parts of Iraq. The documents are significant and interesting - but they only give us more details about talks held between al Qaeda and Hussein's government during the nineties. We already knew that talks like these occurred. The 9/11 commission considered them before concluding that there was no evidence of a collaborative relationship.
03-26-06, 01:46 PM Scotty All of a sudden everyone knew about Iraq and al Qaeda. Well what the devil has been going on over the last three years about no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda? People here were claiming no connection. Maybe other things will come out as well.
03-26-06, 01:55 PM DorianGreyed Scotty, when you publish old news and try to re-wrap it, it looks as if you have nothing to back up what you say. The Saddam/Osam "connection" has been in the open for a few years. Even people in the administration have admitted that it is little more than the Saddam/Rumsfeld connection. (At least with that one, there is photographic evidence.) If this is news to you, then you are a few years behind on events.
There may very well have been a more meaningful link between the two, but nothing so far has shown that to be factual. Wishing it to be true doesn't make it true.
03-26-06, 02:01 PM Scotty These are new documents that were just released this week, and they are being posted all over the web from different news sources. They are just confirming what we already knew to be the truth. People on this forum have been trying for years to deny and relations between Saddam and al Qaeda. Most here did not want to admit a connection, because that would possibly give more support to the President for the war. I think that you will find that this is a little more than you mentioned above.
03-26-06, 02:07 PM newnickname If you look back over the "Hussein/bin Laden link" threads, Scotty, you'll see that no one on this forum (except maybe by a slip of the tongue) denied any connection. We know there were connections, and have known for a while.
Bush did not go to war on the basis that "there were talks between Hussein and al Qaeda ten years ago, the outcome of which we are not sure of". He couldn't have. He went to war on the basis of a misleading implication that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and the threat of WMD.
It's a trick question, of course, but do you think that every country that contacted al Qaeda sometime in the past, to look at strikes against a mutual enemy, should be invaded and its government overthrown?
03-26-06, 02:21 PM Scotty It states in the documents that Saddam was planning with others, action(in some form or another) against the United States. This is a fact that all of you have been denying these last three years, that he was not a threat to the US. Apparently he was.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
Did Bush lie? Maybe he did. Isn't this politics as usual? We live in 'The Information Age'. President Rosevelt was in office wheelchair bound. This was hidden from the people of the US as a weakness not to be seen by the people. Can anyone imagine something so obvious being unknown today? It couldn't happen.
We live in an age where information is quickly attainable. It was not the fact that politics were any less corupt by Republican or Democrat parties. In truth, both are equally corrupt. We see it today, which is the only difference. ************************************************** 03-26-06, 07:14 PM frankvan We always knew that F.D.R was disabled,just that we didn't know the extent of his disability. We were not terribly inquisitive because everyone realized that his being obliged to have someone support him in every photo op didn't interfere with his ability to discharge the duties of president and commander in chief.
To equate the lying and/or misleading of the nation, in order to launch an unnecessary, illegal, unwinnable and badly planned war, with minimizing the extent of a disabled president's infirmity from the public, is laughable. A better comparison of Roosevelt's subterfuge would be the extent to which the White House tries to prevent the disclosure of Geo. W Bush's intellectual infirmity to a world which isn't fooled for a moment. Wink ************************************************** 03-26-06, 07:24 PM newnickname
quote: It states in the documents that Saddam was planning with others, action (in some form or another) against the United States.
No, it doesn't. The documents tell us that Hussein at least started to explore the possibility of cooperating with al Qaeda in attacking US targets, in the mid-nineties. We don't know what came of these contacts, or if anything did at all. The 9/11 commission already considered this kind of information. The documents give us more detail, and a certain link between Hussein himself and the talks, but nothing about actual plans.
We didn't need any documents, now or at any time since Gulf War I, to tell us that Hussein might want to seek to harm the US, if he could come up with a way of doing it without calling down more sanctions or air-strikes.
To repeat, 'Bush did not go to war on the basis that "there were talks between Hussein and al Qaeda ten years ago, the outcome of which we are not sure of". He couldn't have. He went to war on the basis of a misleading implication that Iraq was involved in 9/11, and the threat of WMD.' That was the lie. ************************************************** 03-26-06, 07:45 PM sid1114 The catalogue of untruths coming from the White House is nearly endless. The biggest is that we are safer as a result of invading Iraq. Another is that Afghanistan is honkey-donkey. How about the budget? Pollution? Energy policy? The effect of tax cuts? Endless indeed. How about the concept that the war would be going better were it not for reporting on it? That independent judiciary is damaging to democracy? If it turns out that Saddam was cozying to al Queda, it doesn't change the fact that at the time we invaded, there was increasing evidence that there were no WMD (there were inspectors, remember?) and that he had been rendered a non-threat by sanctions, inspections, no-fly zones. A war that has cost so many lives (not in an of itself and argument: some things are worth dying for, just not this one), and which, according to Joe Stiglitz, Nobel-prize winning economist, will ultimately cost at LEAST a trillion dollars, and which has damaged the US in so many ways; a war waged without proper planning; a war which has accomplished exactly the opposite of its intent; THAT is what Bush needs to be judged on. No piece of paper, however true, changes any of that. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 05:31 AM Scotty The usual lib spin goes on and on as predicted. Big Grin More is yet to come out of this, and you will have to find different ways to try and spin out of it. stay tuned for more Iraqi documents. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 05:52 AM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Scotty: More is yet to come out of this, and you will have to find different ways to try and spin out of it. stay tuned for more Iraqi documents.
Really ? And are any of them going to contain stuff which the Commission knew nothing of?I can't help but think that the Commission would have known all that you do, and more, and that there is nothing truly new to come. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 09:39 AM newnickname
quote: More is yet to come out of this...
Do you mean more details about the talks in the nineties - like the agreement to broadcast a radical cleric on Iraq radio - or do you mean 'more' as in something that would justify the invasion of Iraq, like actual evidence of aggressive or threatening actions, decisions and plans arising from the talks?
Is there likely to be anything to overturn the 9/11 Commission's finding that there were inconclusive contacts, which didn't amount to collaboration? ************************************************** 03-27-06, 11:14 AM sid1114 here's another reference to lies, and worse, from Andrewsullivan.com:
This is from an interview with Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, and founding member of Delta Force, the U.S.'s crack counter-terrorist unit. I don't agree with everything he says, but I was struck by this exchange:
"Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...
A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.
I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.
Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...
A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do."
Another commie, liberal, Bush-hating founder of Delta Force.... ************************************************** 03-27-06, 12:09 PM DorianGreyed "The usual lib spin goes on and on as predicted. Big Grin More is yet to come out of this, and you will have to find different ways to try and spin out of it. stay tuned for more Iraqi documents."
Scotty, you have found a nail in a field and postulated a house, and you want others to see that same house. Yet when presented with the mounting evidence that Bush, in fact, intended all along to invade Iraq, and at the very best, manipulated facts to justify his desire for the war, you suddenly become blind. More and more facts come out that invasion was one of Bush's early objectives once elected, more and more people see that, more and more people agree that Bush lied to get public support for the invasion, and more and more people feel that the invasion was a mistake. Events, and the truth, have passed you by. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 02:40 PM Dwight I was very interested in sid1114's post concerning CSM Haney and his comments concerning torturing prisoners. I feel very strongly that torture should be banned by US government agencies and military organizations.
Anyway, I did some additional research on CSM Haney and found that he had written a book.
CSM (Ret) Eric Haney's book. I have not read this book, but I think I will order it. I thought I would post this so if anyone else is interested they would know about it. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 04:43 PM Scotty
quote: Really ?
Big Grin
How many of you wanted to deny that Saddam had not connection with al Qaeda? Nobody wants to admit to it now. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 05:10 PM DorianGreyed I believe the phrase usually used was "no meaningful relationship." Again, I remind you that there is more evidence that Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld were friends than Saddam and bin Laden, unless you want to claim that there was a picture of Saddam and Osama together, but someone took it to Syria before the invasion. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 05:34 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I believe the phrase usually used was "no meaningful relationship." Again, I remind you that there is more evidence that Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld were friends than Saddam and bin Laden, unless you want to claim that there was a picture of Saddam and Osama together, but someone took it to Syria before the invasion.
" As a matter of fact I have met Saddam Hussein the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is that Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war....." [George Galloway M.P.]
A friend of Saddam and the US indeed, was Mr Rumsfeld. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 05:49 PM DorianGreyed Mabe we should bomb Rumsfeld. Big Grin
Note to government censors: That was a joke. You can tell by the smilie. ************************************************** 03-27-06, 07:51 PM newnickname
quote: How many of you wanted to deny that Saddam had not connection with al Qaeda?
I think that everyone on this board denies that there was no connection. To put it another way, I'm pretty sure that everyone here accepts that there were (or had been) connections of some kind. But there are connections between the US and al Qaeda, or almost any other country you care to mention and al Qaeda. The question is the significance of the connections.
Can you find an example of someone on this board saying there was no connection between Hussein and al Qaeda?
Sample thread to pick through:
Saddam-Osama link ************************************************** 03-28-06, 11:51 AM FredPuli Of all the many thousands of documents found in Afghanistan since the Taliban fell none (we may take it )shows any link between Saddam and al Qaeda.Yet al Qaeda was based there.It was a bureaucratic organisation too, even having an application form for would-be members.
One of these new documents is dated August 17th 2002. It is from Iraq's intelligence service. It says that there is " information from a reliable source " that two al Qaeda people were in Iraq and that agents should " search the tourist sites (hotels, residential apartments and rented houses)" for them. Why? If there's a relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda how come his men are being told to search, and search the tourist areas at that, for members of the organisation?
[The above two points are from'Enemy of Our Enemy' an Op-Ed of Peter Bergen in the NYT today ]
It could never have been in al Qaeda's interest to keep Saddam in power. His rule was resolutely secular and non- clerical, even to the extent of having a cabinet member who was Christian. He had happily put to death any cleric who got in his way. He would never tolerate any power in the hands of the religious. All of al Qaeda's dramatic coups were managed without him: they'd got on perfectly well without any assistance from the man whom bin Laden called 'an infidel'.
None of this of course will weigh with those who still want to think that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11 or that he had WMD all along, but , heck, there are still creationists out there in the USA too Big Grin ************************************************** 03-29-06, 09:50 PM notinmyname Hi all,
A lot of responses from the supposedly silent crowd. Back to my 60 hour work week. ************************************************** 03-30-06, 12:07 AM newnickname Good point. Silence? What silence?
Here's the Bergen op-ed that Fred mentioned:
'What do the new documents establish?
According to ABC News's translation of one of the most credible documents, in early 1995 Mr. bin Laden — then living in Sudan — met with an Iraqi government representative and discussed "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The document also noted that the "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties" was "to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The results of this meeting were ... nothing. Two subsequent attacks against American forces in Saudi Arabia — a car bombing that year and the Khobar Towers attack in 1996 — were carried out, respectively, by locals who said they were influenced by Mr. bin Laden and by the Saudi branch of Hezbollah, a Shiite group aided by Iranian government officials.
As for the other new documents, there is one dated Sept. 15, 2001, that outlines contacts between Mr. bin Laden and Iraq, but it is based on an Afghan informant discussing a conversation with another Afghan. It is third-hand hearsay.
And, strangely, another document, dated Aug. 17, 2002, from Iraq's intelligence service explains there is "information from a reliable source" that two Al Qaeda figures were in Iraq and that agents should "search the tourist sites (hotels, residential apartments and rented houses)" for them. If Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a relationship, why was it necessary for Iraqi intelligence to be scouring the country looking for members of the terrorist organization?' www.nytimes.com
And another article from the same paper:
'All the documents, which are available on fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm, have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists and do not alter the government's official stance, officials say. On some tapes already released, in fact, Mr. Hussein expressed frustration that he did not have unconventional weapons.
Intelligence officials had serious concerns about turning loose an army of amateurs on a warehouse full of raw documents that include hearsay, disinformation and forgery. Mr. Negroponte's office attached a disclaimer to the documents, only a few of which have been translated into English, saying the government did not vouch for their authenticity.
Another administration official described the political logic: "If anyone in the intelligence community thought there was valid information in those documents that supported either of those questions — W.M.D. or Al Qaeda — they would have shouted them from the rooftops."' www.nytimes.com
And from a Canadian source:
'The federal government is making public a huge trove of documents seized during the invasion of Iraq, posting them on the Internet in a step that is at once a nod to the Web's power and an admission that U.S. intelligence resources are overloaded.
Republican leaders in Congress pushed for the release, which was first proposed by conservative commentators and bloggers hoping to find evidence about the fate of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, or possible links to terror groups.
The Web surfers have begun posting translations and comments, digging through the documents with gusto. The idea of the government turning over a massive database to volunteers is revolutionary -- and not only to them.
"Let's unleash the power of the Internet on these documents," said House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich. "I don't know if there's a smoking gun on WMD or not. But it will give us a better understanding of what was going on in Iraq before the war."
The documents' value is uncertain -- intelligence officials say that they are giving each one a quick review to remove anything sensitive. Skeptics of the war, suspicious of the Bush administration, believe that means the postings are either useless or cherry-picked to bolster arguments for the war...' cnews.canoe.ca
Is it possible that the Bush administration's dumping of all these documents onto the Internet is a calculated attempt to fuel the rants of right-wing bloggers?
'It happened at one of Bush's fake "town hall meetings" this week. An Army wife asked Bush why the mainstream media only focuses on "the bad news" from Iraq and never reports "the good news." Bush furrowed his brow and nodded in agreement. Earlier in the week the administration launched a Vietnam-era-style "blame the media" campaign to explain plummeting public support for both the war and Bush himself.
The woman's question offered Bush an opportunity for another anti-media riff on that theme. He sympathized with her distress and suggested (pay attention - here comes the truth part) that she should turn to alternative sources for news, "like the internet."'www.truthout.org Is it possible that the Whitehouse has fallen for its own propaganda, and believes it is unfairly represented by a liberal media, but that right-wingers on the Net can save the day? ************************************************** 03-30-06, 09:40 AM newnickname The BBC's take on the released documents:
'Published documents
Separate from the USJFCOM analysis is the posting on the internet of documents found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is an ongoing process by the US Director of National Intelligence and more documents will appear.
One of the first to attract attention (in the Weekly Standard) is a report in 2001 from the Iraqi ambassador in the Philippines, Salah Samarmad.
Reporting about a kidnapping of foreigners by the Abu Sayyaf group, linked to al-Qaeda, he tells his government that the Iraqi Intelligence Service had been supporting them but no longer.
"The kidnappers were formerly receiving money and purchasing combat weapons. From now on we are not giving them this opportunity and are not on speaking terms with them."
Contacts between Iraq and the Abu Sayyaf group have been reported before. In 2003, a State Department official told Congress about a link. But now with this document, evidence has come into plain view.
Another document details a meeting between Iraqi officials and Osama Bin Laden in Sudan in 1995 during which the al-Qaeda leader asks for help.
The US National Commission on the attacks of 9/11 said that Iraq "apparently never responded", though Vice-President Dick Cheney has argued that evidence of a link has been "overwhelming".
Among other documents is one from 14 March 2003 in which Saddam's son Qusay orders 448 captured Kuwaitis to be placed as "human shields" in strategic locations expected to be attacked by the "criminal Anglo-American aggressors".
This order raises the possibility that Iraq did in fact hold onto Kuwaiti prisoners from the first Gulf War long after it said it had none.
Caution
However, a note of caution is due here which is also introduced by the US Army unit releasing the documents. It says: "The US government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents."
And the website actually asks readers to contact an address if they read documents which "they feel are inappropriately released" - that is forgeries.
Already, the irregular army of bloggers around the world is examining them in detail.'news.bbc.co.uk The US government doesn't seriously expect bloggers around the world to find it a justification for the invasion, three years after the fact, does it? It seems more like the Internet-Age equivalent of knitting socks for the troops; something to make the civilian population feel involved, to keep them onside. ************************************************** 03-30-06, 11:36 AM DorianGreyed "Is it possible that the Whitehouse has fallen for its own propaganda, and believes it is unfairly represented by a liberal media, but that right-wingers on the Net can save the day?"
We must remember that it was the Internet that proved the CBS bush National Guard memos to be fakes. Of course, what the "Liberal Media" nor anyone else didn't follow up on was the comments of the secretary who would have typed up any such documents. She said that they were fake, but that they basically contained the truth. In other words, they were like copies of the Declaration of Independence. No one complains that those are copies; they are more concerned with what they represent.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
'...a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."'news.nationaljournal.com
I guess it's not quite a direct lie, is it? ************************************************** 03-31-06, 10:44 AM DorianGreyed Just in case anyone is thinking how good a president Colin Powell would be, there is this, also from the article:
Official records and interviews with current and former officials also reveal that the president was told that even then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts that the tubes might be used for nuclear weapons.
But Powell is the one who made the case for the tubes, and thus, the war, in front of the UN. SO he stood by that manipulated "evidence" even though he wasn't sure it was true. That is amazingly similar to what he did when he was the investigating officer in the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam. There, despite eyewitness letters in front of him, he said that there was no evidence of any such event. I guess, for Powell, the truth is something that needs to be avoided if it interferes with one's career. (Powell's career took off after he lied for the team back then.) So much for honor. ************************************************** 04-01-06, 11:13 PM newnickname '...None of this necessarily means that Bush doctored US intelligence to make a purposely false case that Iraq was seething with weapons of mass destruction. There is plenty of evidence that others in the administration - Dick Cheney, in particular - exaggerated such that their pants must have caught fire, but nothing so far proved that Bush knew he was making a false case. Indeed, foreign intelligence sources were in agreement with Bush on Iraq's WMD and so were Clinton administration officials who had seen some of the same intelligence. Even within the Bush administration, critics of the war - and there were some - were just as convinced that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell, you may recall, soiled his stellar reputation with a United Nations speech that is now just plain sad to read. Almost none of it is true.
There remains, though, the little matter of what was in Bush's gut - not his head, mind you, but that elusive place where emotion resides. It was there, in the moments after 9/11, that Bush truly decided on war, maybe because Saddam had once tried to kill George H.W. Bush, maybe because the neocons had convinced him that a brief war in Iraq would have long-term salutary consequences for the entire Middle East, maybe because he could not abide the thought that a monster like Saddam might die in his sleep - and maybe because he heard destiny calling.
Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.'Bush Wanted War ************************************************** 04-02-06, 03:53 PM Scotty
quote: Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.' Bush Wanted War
quote: If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair minded person
quote: Whatever Bush's specific reason or reasons, the one thing that's so far missing from the record is proof of him looking for a genuine way out of war instead of looking for a way to get it started. Bush wanted war. He just didn't want the war he got.' Bush Wanted War
quote: If you really believe that President BUSH lied - - THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ AND HE TOOK US TO WAR SOLELY FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES --then read this and, if you are the fair minded person
quote: ...THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ...
(Is Scotty OK? - I hope that mid-sentence halt is just a computer glitch.)
Anyway, as far as the post got, it already has a straw-man fallacy. We know that there had been WMD in Iraq. Surveys since the fall of Hussein, conducted by Bush appointees, concluded that the WMD programs had most likely been wound up by the mid-nineties. There were still bits and pieces of illegal weaponry around, some from before the first Gulf War. The UN weapons inspectors had been doing an adequate job of locating these.
Putting forward an argument against hypothetical people who say there were never WMD in Iraq is just like putting forward an argument against hypothetical people who say there were never any links between Hussein and al Qaeda - it's a rhetorical trick which proves nothing. ************************************************** 04-02-06, 08:18 PM Scotty Sorry about that,don't know what happened. Here's the link. It's something that you probably know, but worth thinking about when you say Bush lied.
REF. ************************************************** 04-03-06, 12:28 AM newnickname
quote: At least it's a selective release.
Good point.
'After the fall of Baghdad, three years ago, the United States military began a secret investigation of the decision-making within Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. The study, carried out by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, drew on captured documents and interviews with former Baath Party officials and Iraqi military officers, and when it was completed, last year, it was delivered to President Bush. The full work remains classified, but “Cobra II,” a recently published book about the early phases of the war, by the Times reporter Michael Gordon and Lieutenant General Bernard Trainor, has disclosed parts of the study, and the Pentagon has released declassified sections, which Foreign Affairs has posted on its Web site. Reading them, it is easy to imagine why the Administration might resist publication of the full study. The extracts describe how the Iraq invasion, more than any other war in American history, was a construct of delusion. Frustratingly, however, we now understand much more about the textures of fantasy in Saddam’s palaces in early 2003 than we do about the self-delusions then prevalent in the West Wing...'www.newyorker.com
On the release of the documents that got Newsmax so excited, House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said, "Let's unleash the power of the Internet on these documents. I don't know if there's a smoking gun on WMD or not. But it will give us a better understanding of what was going on in Iraq before the war." (From the earlier canoe link)
But apparently, the Whitehouse already has a fairly detailed understanding of what was going on in Iraq before the war. They just don't want to share it, because it doesn't fit with their propaganda.
The release of the documents mentioned in the original post looks more and more like a stunt.
(Scotty, yes; those quotes - at least the more recent ones - are very embarrassing for some US Democrats. They also got it wrong.) ************************************************** 04-03-06, 09:46 AM newnickname 'Page four of Sunday's Washington Post carried a story titled "The President as Average Joe," which described how George W. Bush is trying once again to cast himself as a regular fella so as to boost his anemic poll numbers...
..."The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable," continued the Times report. "Mr. Bush predicted that it was 'unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.' Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment. The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."
Quite a nifty trick for an Average Joe, yes? This was from the same regular fella who ever-so-earnestly told journalist Helen Thomas last week that he didn't want war, because no president wants war. Here we have merely another lie, an accent in a symphony of lies. If Bush did not want war, why decide upon an attack despite the absence of the public motivator for attack, the weapons of mass destruction? Why try to goad Hussein into a fight?..
...Reporter Murray Wass, writing for the National Journal, wrote another essay last week that exposed more of the lies that were used to trick the people of this nation into supporting the unnecessary and criminal invasion of Iraq. "Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser," wrote Waas, "cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns shortly after an informal review of classified government records by then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his 2003 State of the Union address - that Iraq was procuring high-strength aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon - might not be true."..'An Average Joe's Spectacular Lies ************************************************** 04-03-06, 12:50 PM DorianGreyed More lies shown by the National Review article -
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." ---- "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." George W. bush, March 17, 2003
SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "An unclassified excerpt of a 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study on Iraq's chemical warfare program in which it stated that there is ‘no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has - or will - establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.’" The report also said, "A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission) actions." [Source: Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 6/13/03; DIA report, 2002]
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS: "Doubts about the quality of some of the evidence that the United States is using to make its case that Iraq is trying to build a nuclear bomb emerged Thursday. While National Security Adviser Condi Rice stated on 9/8 that imported aluminum tubes ‘are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs’ a growing number of experts say that the administration has not presented convincing evidence that the tubes were intended for use in uranium enrichment rather than for artillery rocket tubes or other uses. Former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright said he found significant disagreement among scientists within the Department of Energy and other agencies about the certainty of the evidence." [Source: UPI, 9/20/02]
OCTOBER 2002 – CIA DIRECTLY WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Africa." [Source: Washington Post, 7/23/03]
OCTOBER 2002 — STATE DEPT. WARNS WHITE HOUSE ON NUKE CHARGES: The State Department’s Intelligence and Research Department dissented from the conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD capabilities that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. "The activities we have detected do not ... add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquiring nuclear weapons." INR accepted the judgment by Energy Department technical experts that aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking to acquire, which was the central basis for the conclusion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, were ill-suited to build centrifuges for enriching uranium. [Source, Declassified Iraq NIE released 7/2003]
OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE: "The government organization most knowledgeable about the United States' UAV program -- the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center -- had sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons" – a WMD claim President Bush used in his October 7 speech on Iraqi WMD, just three days before the congressional vote authorizing the president to use force. [Source: Washington Post, 9/26/03]
2003: WH Pressures Intel Agencies to Conform; Ignores More Warnings
Instead of listening to the repeated warnings from the intelligence community, intelligence officials say the White House instead pressured them to conform their reports to fit a pre-determined policy. Meanwhile, more evidence from international institutions poured in that the White House’s claims were not well-grounded.
LATE 2002-EARLY 2003 – CHENEY PRESSURES CIA TO CHANGE INTELLIGENCE: "Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]
JANUARY, 2003 – STATE DEPT. INTEL BUREAU REITERATE WARNING TO POWELL: "The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), the State Department's in-house analysis unit, and nuclear experts at the Department of Energy are understood to have explicitly warned Secretary of State Colin Powell during the preparation of his speech that the evidence was questionable. The Bureau reiterated to Mr. Powell during the preparation of his February speech that its analysts were not persuaded that the aluminum tubes the Administration was citing could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium." [Source: Financial Times, 7/30/03]
We now know that there was a great deal of doubt. I don't know about you, Scotty, but when someone says something that he knows isn't true, I call that a lie. What do you call it? ************************************************** 04-05-06, 02:01 AM newnickname 'While many Americans think of the Nuremberg trials after World War II as just holding Nazi leaders accountable for genocide, a major charge against Adolf Hitler’s henchmen was the crime of aggressive war. Later, that principle was embodied in the United Nations Charter, forbidding armed aggression by one state against another.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who represented the United States at the Nuremberg Tribunal, made clear that the intent was to establish a precedent against aggressive war.
“Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions,” Jackson said, adding that the same rules would apply to the victors in World War II.
“Let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment,” Jackson said...
...While Bush has insisted that his invasion of Iraq was “preemptive” – defined as an act of self-defense to thwart an impending attack – his argument is not only laughable in the case of Iraq, but has been contradicted by his own advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
In a March 26 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rice offered a different rationale for invading Iraq. She agreed that Hussein was not implicated in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks nor did she assert that he was conspiring with al-Qaeda on another assault.
Instead, Rice justified invading Iraq and ousting Hussein because he was part of the “old Middle East,” which she said had engendered hatreds that led indirectly to 9/11.
“If you really believe that the only thing that happened on 9/11 was people flew airplanes into buildings, I think you have a very narrow view of what we faced on 9/11,” Rice said. “We faced the outcome of an ideology of hatred throughout the Middle East that had to be dealt with. Saddam Hussein was a part of that old Middle East. The new Iraq will be a part of the new Middle East, and we will all be safer.”
Rice’s argument – that Bush has the right to invade any country that he feels is part of a culture that might show hostility toward the United States – represents the most expansive justification to date for launching the Iraq War.
It goes well beyond waging “preemptive” or even “predictive” war. Rice is asserting a U.S. right to inflict death and destruction on Muslim countries as part of a social-engineering experiment to eradicate their perceived cultural and political tendencies toward hatred.
Despite the extraordinary implications of Rice’s declaration, her comment passed almost unnoticed by the U.S. news media, which gave much more attention to her demurring on the possibility of becoming the next National Football League commissioner.
Yet Rice’s new war rationale, combined with the British memo on Bush’s determination to invade Iraq regardless of the facts, should be more than enough evidence to put Bush, Rice, Blair and other U.S. and British officials before a war crimes tribunal.
But that would only happen if Justice Jackson were right about the universal application of the principle against aggressive wars – and if all nations and leaders actually lived by the same rules.'Time to Talk War Crimes
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
