Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:00 PM
midnight (25,907 posts)
'We Did Participate in a Hoax': New Documentary Offers New Revelations About the Bush Admin's Phony
Case for the Iraq War Scam"
By BRAD FRIEDMAN on 2/17/2013, 12:18pm PT
David Corn at Mother Jones offers a preview of some of the new information coming Monday, in Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, an MSNBC documentary based on the book of a similar name by Corn and Michael Isikoff.
The film, to be narrated by Rachel Maddow, is said, like the book, to detail the inside story of how America and the world were knowingly scammed by the Bush Administration into invading Iraq ten years ago next month, leading to, as Corn describes it, "a nine-year war resulting in 4,486 dead American troops, 32,226 service members wounded, and over 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians."
"The tab for the war topped $3 trillion," he adds, even though "it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction and no significant operational ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda. That is, the two main assertions used by Bush and his crew to justify the war were not true."
The facts of how the nation was conned into going to war, Maddow has argued over the past week while promoting and previewing the new film, are important to understand in order to avoid the same thing happening again. "If what we went through 10 years ago did not change us as a nation --- if we do not understand what happened and adapt to resist it --- then history says we are doomed to repeat it," she says.
Some might say Bush would never go to all this trouble and expenditure of life and money for a phony war....
15 replies, 2673 views
'We Did Participate in a Hoax': New Documentary Offers New Revelations About the Bush Admin's Phony (Original post)
|Arkansas Granny||Feb 2013||#1|
|mother earth||Feb 2013||#6|
Response to midnight (Original post)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:08 PM
Arkansas Granny (17,204 posts)
1. My personal opinion is that GWB took the U.S.into
the Iraq war to prove something to Poppy Bush. I believe that's the only reason he ran for President in the first place.
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #4)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:40 PM
zentrum (1,200 posts)
9. Agreed. It wasn't about revenge for the
...assassination attempt , but still --it had something to do with defeating dad. An attempt to out-CIA him, and be a huge Oil War President. And something about Barb too--and Jeb--to show them all he wasn't just the younger, stupider fuck up brother, but the "history-maker." It was some huge sick, ugly family system drama being played out.
Response to zentrum (Reply #9)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:06 PM
goclark (30,404 posts)
10. This is an "off message question" about Bush Sr.
Was he really on the
This link indicates " No" with photo comparisons....
Here is another link that indicates him being ? real close to the operations in Texas.
I'll wait to hear Rachel's side of the Story -- Rachael knows how to get the facts -- I have my TV set to record.
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #7)
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:40 AM
PDittie (7,312 posts)
14. Yeah. But more for
beating his dad in 1992. And then once in office, realizing he could accomplish several paybacks by invading Iraq. The illegal part was just a means to an end.
Response to midnight (Original post)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:27 PM
WinkyDink (43,798 posts)
5. What's with these guesses? FOLLOW THE MONEY, people. It's that simple.
Halliburton. Bechtel. GE. Blackwater.
War-profiteering is worth BILLIONS---at the least.
Response to WinkyDink (Reply #5)
Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:32 PM
underpants (111,822 posts)
8. Exactly the prime goal was to empty the Treasury - "starve the beast" as Norquist says
thye made us broke while filling the pockets of their operatives (Custer Battle for instance) and providing seed money for a private military (see Bush's SOTU statement about a military controlled by the Executive branch).