Nothing about "nook-ular" bombs or aluminum tubes, nothing about UAVs that could spray chemicals on the coasts, nothing about the non-existent mobile chemical labs, and nothing about connections with "CIA-Duh."
By the time you are done reading the spun piece of s*** you will again believe Saddam had WMD.
"Bush’s memoir uses select parts of Iraq reports; Omits details of cooperation to bolster war case" by Walter Pincus, Washington Post / November 17, 2010
WASHINGTON — In his memoir “Decision Points,’’ former President George W. Bush passionately defends his 2003 decision to invade Iraq, citing, among other things, a Jan. 27, 2003, report to the UN Security Council by Hans Blix, the Swedish director of the UN inspectors who had spent two months looking for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
But Bush makes selective use of Blix’s January report, citing elements that support the idea that Hussein was not cooperating and leaving out parts that indicate his government was.
You know, the same thing the lying, war-promoting AmeriKan media did and does.
More to the point, however, Bush fails to mention two subsequent Blix pre-invasion reports in February and early March, weeks before US bombs struck Baghdad. Those show Iraq cooperating with inspectors and the inspectors finding no significant evidence that Hussein was hiding such arms programs.
A bit of context:
From the war-hawking AmeriKan media? Hah!
In summer and fall 2002, Bush had to be talked into going to the United Nations for a new resolution that, when passed in November 2002, called on Iraq to submit a “currently accurate, full, and complete declaration’’ of weapons of mass destruction. It also opened the way for Blix to begin inspections where, as Bush writes, “the burden of proof rested with Saddam. The inspectors did not have to prove that he had weapons. He had to prove he did not.’’
How do you prove a negative?
So when does Israel have to prove they don't have a bomb?
Bush’s goal for the UN inspections was described to Bob Woodward by Bush during an interview on Dec. 10, 2003. Bush told Woodward, according to a transcript, that he and British Prime Minister Tony Blair “have crafted a very intrusive inspection regime . . . which Blair and I were hoping would cause there to be a crumbling within the regime.’’ That did not happen.
Related: Woodward's Afghan Assassins
Yeah, that book has been talked about much less in AmeriKa.
Instead, after a slow beginning in late November 2002, Blix’s inspectors began work in earnest in January 2003 with 100 inspectors in Iraq. His Jan. 27 report to the Security Council was Blix’s first major update on what he had found. In his book, Bush summed up the findings, saying Blix’s teams “had discovered warheads that Saddam failed to declare or destroy, indications of the highly toxic VX nerve agent, and precursor chemicals for mustard gas.’’ He also wrote, “The Iraqi government was defying the inspection process,’’ citing Baghdad’s “blocking of U-2 flights and hiding 3,000 documents in the home of an Iraqi official.’’
Yeah, keep the U-2 FLIGHTS in MIND for LATER, please!
Bush concluded with Blix’s statement that day: “Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today of the disarmament that was demanded of it.’’ In fact, Blix made that statement introducing his Jan. 27 report and related it to Iraq’s attitude toward the 1991 UN resolution and subsequent ones that dealt with inspections. He compared Iraq’s past cooperation as “withheld or grudgingly given,’’ with that of South Africa, which decided to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspections, and in that context said Baghdad had not yet “come to a genuine acceptance . . . of disarmament.’’
Related: Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons
But Iran and Iraq are harangued for nonexistent nukes?
Bush left out that Blix later said, “Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far’’ with inspectors. “The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.’’
Blix on Jan. 27 also made less of the discovered warheads that were designed to deliver chemicals but had no such agents in them. He noted that there were only “a number,’’ reported as 11 when the find had been publicized earlier that month. Blix reported that the Iraqis said the warheads had been overlooked in 1991 when about 2,000 were stored at that ammunition dump during the Persian Gulf War. Blix also said the Iraqis thereafter carried out their own investigation and later reported finding four additional chemical rockets at another site.
As for the VX, Blix said that “indications’’ pointed to Iraq having worked on problems of purifying and stabilizing the poison and perhaps weaponizing it, but that none of the agent was found.
Blix called the U-2 issue “a problem’’ because the Iraqis would not guarantee the safety of the UN aircraft.
Yeah, wait until you see the problem I have with them.
And Iraq never even shot one down, huh?
How much of a threat could they really have been?
The 3,000 pages of documents, not 3,000 documents, found in the search of a nuclear scientist’s home worried Blix.
Just Bush disassembling again!
But he told the Security Council that the Iraqis said it represented a researcher bringing papers from the workplace. Bush’s attempt in his book to say that Blix’s Jan. 27 report proved inspections were failing omits the two later prewar inspection reports that raised serious questions about whether US intelligence and that of other countries were correct about Iraq’s having prohibited weapons programs.
Also see: British Put Blinkers on Blix
Blix reported on Feb. 14, 2003, that he had conducted 400 inspections at more than 300 sites without advance notice and without Iraqi interference. Although many proscribed weapons and items had not been accounted for, so far his inspectors had “not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions.’’
In his March 7, 2003, report, 12 days before the first US and coalition attack, Blix reported on a “significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991,’’ including the names of those who participated.
Yup, IRAQ OBEYS the U.N and gets INVADED!
Israel DEFIES the U.N. and gets its ass kissed.
'nough said!
In addition, “no underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far,’’ he said.
Bush mentions none of this, focusing instead on the US and British inability to get a second UN resolution passed that would justify invasion.
That will be covered below, and why Bliar thought they needed another.
In 2005, Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, accused the Bush administration of “cherry-picking intelligence’’ to justify going into Iraq.
Right, John Kerry, the great antiwar Democrat.
Didn't he VOTE FOR the THING?
So HE SAW the SAME INTEL, right?
Bush responded by saying, “It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.’’
That's why I'm not reading that piece of s*** book.
--more--"
And what is the war criminal up to these days?
George W. Bush and Laura Bush took part in the groundbreaking ceremony for the George W. Bush Presidential Center yesterday at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. (Lm Otero/Associated Press)
I think he should have to dig the graves of each and every person who has been killed because of his lies.
On work release from his Gitmo hotel room, of course. Got a waterboard with your name on it, Georgie!
"Bush breaks ground on presidential center in Texas
DALLAS — Former President George W. Bush, joined by former administration officials including former vice president Dick Cheney and former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, broke ground yesterday on his presidential center.
Look, he was joined by his war-criminal assistants!
More than 3,000 people attended the event under a giant white tent at Southern Methodist University.
Outside, there were around 100 protesters joined by a handful of counterprotesters....
--more--"
I thought this deserved a second look, readers:
"Prop 102: Iraq and Government Lies
Now you may think I'm going to go over the false WMD, the false uranium charge, the false terrorist ties, Chalabi's group, the prison abuse, and the lack of reconstruction.
That's not what I'm going to do; I'm going to focus on the LIES of SEVERAL GOVERNMENTS that we were told were AGAINST the invasion of Iraq.
The information has been culled from New York Times papers I purchased.
The relevant dates are all from 2006, dated February 27, March 2, 3, 12, and 27:
First is a report that German Intel gave the U.S. the Iraqi defense plan a month before the invasion. The Germans "offered more significant assistance to the US than their government has publicly acknowledged... and... is not the only instance in which nations that publicly cautioned against the war privately facilitated it. Egypt and Saudi Arabia... provided more help than they have disclosed."
The article details that that after the Germans passed along the intel, and "when the bombs started falling, the agents ceased operations, and went to the French embassy."
That's the French who were damn near our enemies for being "against" us on this, right? Most of the article is German government disassembling and backtracking as "accounts of German assistance differs from the one the German government has provided publicly."
German ships also provided operational assistance in some areas. This was designated by the U.S. as "noncoalition but cooperating."
Later, it was exposed that a top level German officer was stationed in Tommy Franks' office!
That the Germans "provided information on Iraqi police and military units... coordinates... of military forces... but... they did not facilitate airstrikes" against Iraq.
Germany continues the cover-up: like the government liars they are, deny, deny, deny your culpability for "Shock and Awe" slaughter.
Turns out that there was "an interesting sidelight... the two German intelligence agents... would take refuge in the French embassy. They did exactly that... giving the French, who also vociferously opposed the... war in Iraq, an indirect role in supporting" the German-American operation.
Hey, with enemies like these, who needs friends? The news analysis actually asks what the big deal is.
Like governments LYING to the PUBLIC is NO PROBLEM!
Not the only case, however. Egypt "publicly... insisted that Egypt would not provide direct help to the U.S.... but quietly allowed U.S. aerial refueling tankers to be based," in Egypt, as well as giving them overflight permission.
Saudi Arabia "played down the extent of their cooperation... but they allowed the Delta Force and other American Special Operations Forces to mount attacks in Iraq from a secret base... the public Saudi explanation was that the area was being cordoned off for a potential flood of Iraqi refugees."
The U.S. described these actions as those of "silent partners."
Then there is the multitude of U.S. LIES, with the focus on the March 12 adaptation in the Times from "Cobra II" by Mike Gordon.
Apparently, Saddam was "so preoccupied about the threat from within... he crippled his military in fighting the threat from without."
I remember Gen. T. Michael Moseley saying that the shooting at the no-fly zone patrols was a 'chicken-or-the-egg' thing.
He said that in July 2002 (to soften up Iraq), the U.S. stepped up bombing raids, which inspired Iraqis to fire their air defenses.
According to Moseley, the question was: "Is he firing more because we are flying more?"
It is important to remember that the "imminent" threat. the "grave and gathering danger" NEVER SHOT DOWN a SINGLE PATROLLING AIR CRAFT in more than 12 YEARS of a no-fly zone.
NOT ONE!!!!
Anyhow, Saddam told his commanders THREE MONTHS BEFORE the war they had no WMD!
He was more worried about internal coups and revolts than the U.S. invasion, and viewed Iran as a serious threat.
How does Gordon know this?
Because 110 Iraqis were interrogated "some to lavish dinners to pry loose their secrets and questioning others in a detention center at the Baghdad airport or the Abu Ghraib prison."
I wonder who the LUCKY Iraqis were -- and the ones who weren't so lucky, who were "questioned" at Abu Ghraib.
As for Iran, Hussein's military "conducted an exercise code-named Golden Falcon that focused on defense of the Iraq-Iran border."
I can't believe we got rid of this guy!
FIGHTS Iran and "Al-CIA-Duh" for us, and we STAB HIM in the BACK!
He even took steps to AVOID WAR!
Saddam "rejected proposals to mine the Persian Gulf, fearing... such an action," as an excuse for America to strike.
He ordered that U.N. inspectors "be given the access they wanted and... ordered a crash effort to scrub the country" so there would be no trace of any banned weapons.
That behavior, HIS COMPLIANCE WITH UN RESOLUTIONS, actually led to his downfall!!!
The very same actions "were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons," and those actions "the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it."
Yup, by this LYING, MURDERING, WAR CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION!!
TELLING LIES to LEAD us to WAR!!!!!
MASS-MURDERING CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!
And POOR Saddam, huh?
Can't win for losing, could you Saddam (peace be upon you)?
And how about your friends, the Russians?
They were protecting you by giving you false information "raising the possibility that it might have been part of a deliberate American effort to fool" the Iraqis with a "disinformation campaign."
NO!!!
America would NEVER do something like that, engage in a campaign of DECEIT and DECEPTION!
That NEVER, EVER happened in the past, and the stink-fuck American government WOULD NEVER LIE US into war, oh no!
Then there is the BOMBSHELL! Bigger than the Downing Street Memo!
Their existence was announced by the New York Times on March 27. 2006, and they are affectionately known as the Sands Memos.
They detail a January 2003 meeting between Bliar and Bush that puts the lie to all the diplomatic posturing -- and exposes an even more NEFARIOUS and SINISTER side of the actions our governments have taken to lead us to war.
After reading this, please tell me again how 9/11 could not possibly or conceivably be an inside job.
According to Sands, Bush was "determined to invade Iraq... even if arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons... the start date... was penciled in for 10 March."
Both leaders knew no weapons had been found, or would likely be, so "Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the UN in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."
So there it is!
Discussion of a real-live, honest-to-goodness FALSE-FLAG OPERATION!
Oh, and the assassination talk, um, George, that's a violation of law. Add another WAR CRIME CHARGE to the IMPEACHMENT LEDGER!!!
As for a second UN resolution, the US would "twist arms and even threaten."
Or SPY on MEMBER STATES, according to the brave British civil servant Katherine Gun.
And how did Bush and Bliar think the war would go?
They were "supremely confident... envisioned a quick victory... Bush predicted that it was 'unlikely there would be internecine warfare,' " and Bliar agreed.
Blair asked about post-invasion planning and "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand... Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."
Yup, a FUCKING FAILURE as always!
Oh, how this DIPSHIT has HURT OUR COUNTRY!!
FUCKING LYING DIPSHIT! However, buried deep in the middle of the piece is an incredible acknowledgment by Bliar.
Bliar wanted the second UN resolution "because it would serve as an 'insurance policy against the unexpected' if anything went wrong with the military campaign... [it] would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."
Do you comprehend the significance of the statement, reader?
When Bliar talks about an "insurance policy against the unexpected' if anything went wrong with the military campaign," he recognizes that what he and Bush initiated is a WAR CRIME!!!
When Bliar is concerned about the military campaign and "unexpected" events, he is concerned about the fact that THEY MAY LOSE!
ONLY LOSERS ARE PUNISHED FOR WAR CRIMES!! WINNERS NEVER ARE!!!
Despite their "supreme confidence" and certainty in their case and cause, these guys were AWARE that they were COMMITTING a WAR CRIME by invading Iraq.
And now it's exponential. Bush guilty of High Crimes and Treason!!
We've used Depleted Uranium weapons in Iraq, and we've dropped chemical weapons on Fallujah.
The list of crimes against humanity that George W. Bush has committed GROWS by the DAY!
Given the unending streams of LIES and OBFUSCATIONS from this administration, reader, is it pure fantastical conjecture that these cretinous criminals not only allowed 9/11 to occur, but that they actually made it happen?
Is it so far beyond the realm of thought now?
Is it?
--MORE--"
Also read: Indict and Try George W. Bush et al for High Treason and Mass Murder
A very well done and thorough examination.
