A quick word regarding that "bad intell" that "fooled" bush & his allies...

[LynnTheDem]

US intell never fooled Canada. Or Mexico. Or over 85% of the entire planet. And not one "ally" had a majority population -not even the UK under tony the bLiar, not even America under george "idiot" bush- that supported invading Iraq. Less than 15% of the world were "fooled" by that "bad intelligence". Maybe that 15% are the stupidest MFers on the planet. Or the biggest MFing liars. Or both. You choose.

"WMD"?

SUMMER, 2002 – CIA WARNINGS (about lack of "WMD") TO WHITE HOUSE EXPOSED
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm

SEPTEMBER, 2002 – DIA TELLS WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Pentagon/us-dod-iraqchemreport-060703.htm

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002 – DEPT. OF ENERGY TELLS WHITE HOUSE OF NUKE DOUBTS (aluminum tubes for conventional rockets, NOT nukes)

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."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_01/003147.php

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."
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/6362092.htm

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.
http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/declassifiedintellreport.pdf

OCTOBER 2002 – AIR FORCE WARNS WHITE HOUSE (against "drones")

"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.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=2755&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

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."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0729powell.htm

FEBRUARY 14, 2003 – UN WARNS WHITE HOUSE THAT NO WMD HAVE BEEN FOUND
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un /

FEBRUARY 15, 2003 – IAEA WARNS WHITE HOUSE NO NUCLEAR EVIDENCE
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340723 /

MARCH 7, 2003 – IAEA REITERATES TO WHITE HOUSE NO EVIDENCE OF NUKES
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Doubts, Dissent Stripped from Public Version of Iraq Assessment
The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.

As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0210-02.htm

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans
The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat'
Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

"I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
-Bush speaking at a news conference Sept. 7 with Tony Blair

There never was, never has been, any such report.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm

France & Russia knew;

'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD program That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.'

The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html#back234

The UK knew
"They also ignore the statements of Robin Cook, the former British foreign secretary who resigned on the eve of the war to protest Prime Minister Tony Blair’s war policy. Cook was quoted in the June 18, 2003 Guardian newspaper as saying: “I think it would be fair to say that there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion. I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/05/nwmd05.xml

"Ties to al Qaeda"?

Aug 6, 2003- Wolfowitz: Iraq Was Not Involved In 9-11 Terrorist Attacks, No Ties To Al-Qaeda
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4372.htm

UN Panel Reports No al-Qaida-Iraq Ties
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/breaking_news/6176302.htm

Leaked Report Rejects Link Claims
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm

Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., today released documents recently declassified at his request that illustrate that some claims of a cooperative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda made by top administration officials in support of the Iraq war were contrary to what U.S. intelligence officials believed to be true.
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=236440

Sources: U.S. distorted Saddam-al Qaeda link - Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league.
https://registration.dfw.com/reg/login.do?url=http://www.dfw.com%2Fmld%2Fdfw%2Fnews%2F8094015.htm

Spanish intelligence service says no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda: report
Spain's counter-espionage service believes there is no link between toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the extremist Al Qaeda network, national media has reported. - The head of the National Intelligence Centre, Jorge Dezcaller, added that Al Qaeda had even accused Saddam of not respecting the principles of Islam,
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/09/06 /

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda
"What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven't.” -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.st...

British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5
A dossier prepared by the two agencies “showed no discernible links between Iraq and al-Qaida,”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=375403

Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;
“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=800

The White House’s own publication, A Decade of Defiance and Deception, makes no mention of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

The 2002 congressional joint intelligence committee’s report on the Sept. 11 attacks revealed that the Bush administration had no evidence to support its claim that Saddam’s government was supporting al-Qaeda.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030723-064812-9491r

No proof links Iraq, al-Qaida, Colin Powell says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ID/3909150

According to a "top secret British document", quoted by the BBC "there is nothing but enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The BBC said the leak came from intelligence officials upset that their work was being used to justify war." (quoted in Daily News, New York, 6 February 2003).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D1EF83E5C0C718CDDAB0894DB404482

"There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
-Richard Clarke, former terrorism chief under bush.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found
Bush administration hyped sketchy and false evidence to push for war
The Bush administration’s claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda — one of the administration’s central arguments for a pre-emptive war — appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration’s claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Nearly a year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq, no evidence has turned up to verify allegations of Saddam’s links with al Qaeda, and several key parts of the administration’s case have either proved false or seem increasingly doubtful.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/2004/03/04/news/nation/8101079.htm

bush's own hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. David Kay;

David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."

He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link, as being "evidence free."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda

Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)

“According to Israeli intelligence, Palestinians are still not connected to the global terror network, and neither is Iraq.”
http://www.haaretz.com /

No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/06/cheney.911

"CIA Review Finds No Evidence Saddam Had Ties to Islamic Terrorists"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1005-01.htm

The MAJORITY of every US ally's own citizens OPPOSED bushCabal's bullshit...including Americans;

December 17, 2002
Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war
More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm



January 13, 2003
Poll: Majority of Americans oppose unilateral action against Iraq
A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001415.html



Public opinion polls indicate that the most Britons strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-04.htm

Eighty-one percent of Britons opposed U.S. actions in Iraq
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070123/NEWS/70123057/-1/archive

Among Key Iraq Partners, Weak Public Support for Troop Presence
Majority of Public in United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Australia, Japan Call for Withdrawing Their Troops
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/74.php?nid=&id=&pnt=74&lb=breu



Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution

Italy: 72% opposed to war

Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now

Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances

Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances

Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically"

Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate

Australia: 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq.

Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000
soldiers to US action.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38226-2003Feb6.html
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+britain
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+spain
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+italy
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+portugal
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+Hungary
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+Czech
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+Poland
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+denmark
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+australia
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22vilnius+10%22+nato
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/02/11/012.html
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+latvia
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+romania
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+macedonia
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+bulgaria
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+estonia
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+slovakia
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/02/07022003192525.asp
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+france
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=iraq+poll+germany
http://www.gallup-international.com/surveys.htm


Don't forget POLAND!

"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities." Access to the oilfields "is our ultimate objective,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3043330.stm

[helderheid]

1. WOW! Rec 1

[unhappycamper]

2. Rec #5.

Those damn, pesky facts. . . .

[SharonAnn]

19. Yes, there was no "bad" intel that "fooled" *. There was good intel. He ignored it.

It wasn't convenient for him to pay attention to the accurate intel.

Instead, he and his cronies "made up" things.

[midnight]

26. I hear a pattern repeated over and over again. And the

best phrase to express that idea being born out is borrowed from Al Gore- An Inconvient Truth.

[AwakeAtLast]

3. I'm still reading, so no comment except

K & R!

:kick:

And bookmarking! :hi:

[Aviation Pro]

4. One has to wonder....

...whether Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, "Wolfy," "Pearly," Good God the list is endless, has ever heard the old saw, "you have two ears and one mouth for a reason."

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Okay, so how do you get this one Fox News?

The Republican voter is so unsophisticated that they think that three year old astro-turf spam e-mails are high tech.

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. This is our problem. We remember all this stuff and...............

I know, personally, that it frustrates the shit out of me.
Are we geniuses? Of course we aren't. So what does that make them...either incredibly stupid or damn liars. I'll go with liars.
Maybe here at DU we happen to have a special gene that allows us to keep our eye on the ball.
It's frustrating as hell.

[Tommy_J]

7. Another K&R!

[annabanana]

8. Great compilation. . . NOW I fear

That he will march into Iran with the same lack of oversight. What this shows is that the administration, the big oil men (worldwide) and the media went to war by themselves and dragged our money and lives along to do it for them.

It makes the picture crystal clear, doesn't it.

[flyarm]

9. thank you Lynn!! k&r..and i have already sent out

to my internet group!!

a great reminder!!

thank you for all that work putting together!!

fly

[MissWaverly]

10. Thank you for nailing this

Robert Reich on ABC's This Week, says that the Iraq War vote has become for the Democrats
what the abortion issue was for the Republicans. I am skeptical of anyone who voted for
this obscene war, the facts were there, congress did not provide the necessary oversight,
period, end of sentence. We can't rewind on this tragedy but we can refuse to vote
for those who have enabled George W. Bush for the last 6 years.

[doublethink]

11. Thank you soooooooo much for this compilation LynnTheDem

This OP should go on everyones immediate e-mailing lists. Again LynnTheDem thank you, much appreciated for all you've done here. Peace. And a :kick: to high heaven. :thumbsup:

[wiggs]

12. Thanks for hanging on to this. Deserving of full page ad in....

USA Today, and I'd donate. Try to publish somewhere. Now is the perfect time to cut the legs out from under this cabal. Public is receptive, some media outlets are not as compliant. You could even send to Waxman.

Didn't find that your link #2 (DIA tells White House...) supports your point or the title on your OP though.

[LynnTheDem]

17. Try another link...

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;
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=14913

And an excellent link w links to so very much more;
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html

Hope this helps! :)

[tuvor]

13. Today's Baltimore Sun: CIA was upset by Pentagon's pre-war views

WASHINGTON // As the Bush administration began assembling its case for war, analysts across the U.S. intelligence community were disturbed by the report of a secret Pentagon team that concluded that Iraq had significant ties to al-Qaida.

Analysts from the CIA and other agencies "disagreed with more than 50 percent" of 26 findings that the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony yesterday from Thomas F. Gimble, the acting inspector general of the Pentagon.

The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its reports, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed, Gimble said in his appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday.

"They didn't make the changes that were talked about in that August 20th meeting," Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.intel10feb10,0,6379151.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines

[Bjorn Against]

14. This is one of the most thorough and convincing posts I have seen on DU in some time....

Lynn, if the New York Times or any other major media outlet would have presented us with half of the facts you just presented us with we would have impeachment hearings starting up right about now. Thank you for your work, this is true journalism we need more like you.

[Gabi Hayes]

15. great, great work! Now, if only ONE member of the corportate M$M

will bother to cite ONE of these links the next time one of their favored liars spews that bilge, I'll fall right off my comfortable chair and have an aneurism

the VERY SAD thing about it is NO DEMS apparently have access to the double secret information you just linked, as I almost NEVER ever hear any of them take those liars to task whenever they make such mendacious assertions

[Spazito]

16. Wow, awesome OP!

Recommended and Bookmarked! Thanks for all your work in putting this together, a very valuable resource for the FACTS versus the propaganda.

[kentuck]

18. "FEBURARY 24, 2003 – CIA WARNS WHITE HOUSE ‘NO DIRECT EVIDENCE’ OF WMD"

They even lied about that ! Not even our own CIA thought there were WMDs in Iraq!

[Jax]

20. Lynn you are a treasure

thank you for this hard and important work. Now I have my afternoon reading! The more FACTS out there the more we can nail the lying murders to the wall.

Thanks again Lynn, you really are a DU treasure!

[gratefultobelib]

21. This is amazing! I feel honored to be part of the same forum as one as committed as you!

[jtrockville]

22. Quick? You call that quick?

* wonders what "thorough" would look like *

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Great post. Great documentation

:kick:

[electron_blue]

24. I keep forgetting that Bush being "fooled" is even on the table in some cases

People would rather believe Bush was fooled than he lied intentionally. Bcs that would require they take some kind of action.

[bonito]

25. Rec #41

[Jokinomx]

27. One of the D.U.'s GREATEST posts....Thank You for your work...

K&R

:toast:

[Tom Joad]

28. "fooled Bush and his allies" meaning allies like Howard, Blair,

and domestically Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, McCain, etc.....

[GreenArrow]

37. and virtually every

Democrat running for the Presidency this time around.

[yellerpup]

29. Kick & nominated

Great work Lynn the Dem! Excellent! :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Canuckistanian]

30. I remember the DOE guy interviewed about the aluminum tubes

He was a nuclear expert in uranium gas separation/extraction techniques. I think it was at Sandia Labs.

He said something like "In this building, we have almost all of the world's experts in the use of aluminum tubes in the making of gas separation centrifuges, and they never consulted us. Instead, there's ONE GUY at a desk in the CIA who insists this is possible. And they use him."

Can anyone point me to the real quote?

[LynnTheDem]

39. The Incredible Timeline of George bUsh's Incredible Aluminum Tube Lie

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/07/we_489_01.html


Oh yes, he knew he was lying. His own National Inteligence Estimate told him the facts;

"In INR's view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to conclude that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program."
http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/iraq_aluminum_tubes.htm

"They are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
-Rice, September 8, 2002

Sorry, rice, but you are a L.I.A.R. Yeah, it's that simple.

The administration was forced to admit publicly that dissenters exist, particularly at the Department of Energy (DOE) and its national laboratories. This dissent is significant because the DOE has virtually the only expertise on gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs in the United States government.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/07/we_489_01.html

And the DOE disagreed with rice and bush, and cheney. Gee, who to believe; the US's only experts...or rice, bush & cheney.

The newest batch of tubes Iraq tried to purchase "actually bear an inscription that includes the word 'rocket,' according to one official who examined them,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35360-2003Jan23?language=printer

Gee...no wonder george w. bush was fooled! He can't read!

And your quote was from David Albright;

"There's a catfight going on about this right now. On one side you have most of the experts on gas centrifuges. On the other you have one guy sitting in the CIA."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,807286,00.html

[Canuckistanian]

56. That's it!

Thanks!

[leftchick]

31. but. but... Hillary said they were LIED to!

poor hil thinks we believe her lies. Thank god for the few dozen Dems in the senate who voted their conscience and not their fears.

[Toucano]

32. Fantastic work, Lynn

We are all indebted to you.

:yourock:

[Toucano]

33. Bush pulled inspectors out to invade.

Remember that: He told the inspectors (who had found nothing) to leave so the bombing could begin.

It was NEVER NEVER NEVER about WMD's.

[Morgana LaFey]

34. Fabulous, just fabulous. nt

[Zhade]

35. These facts are why I will not support a pro-IWR voter for president.

Either they knew it was bullshit, or they were too stupid/cowardly/uninformed not to realize it.

Neither trait is worth rewarding with the highest office in the land. Period.

[Danascot]

47. Can you say

Politically Expedient?

I knew you could.

[TahitiNut]

36. Please! Put this in the Research Forum! This MUST be repeated and repeated and repeated.

Many of us, including myself, were ABSOLUTELY aware of the fraudulency this regime was engaged in. This has NEVER been a mystery, no matter how many times the corrupt and cowardly want to repeat the LIE that "everyone believed" the lies. That's abominable nonsense.

This is an excellent compilation and deserves constant reference, imho.

[cui bono]

38. And yet people still defend Dems who voted for the IWR.

I don't get it.

[Roland99]

40. And you can't forget Seymour Hersh and Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski

THE COMING WARS by Seymour M. Hersh
What the Pentagon can now do in secret.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact

THE STOVEPIPE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
How conflicts between the Bush Administration and the intelligence community marred the reporting on Iraq’s weapons.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

The new Pentagon papers - By Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

Hijacking Catastrophe - by Karen Kwiatkowski (Lt. Col. USAF retired)
Hijacking Catastrophe is powerful, understated, straightforward and educational. In a single meticulously organized hour of evidence and analysis, viewers are treated to a thoughtful explanation of modern American empire, neo-conservatism as a driving force for the current Bush administration.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh spills the secrets of the Iraq quagmire and the war on terror
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/10/11_hersh.shtml

[Danascot]

41. Who knew?

It was just a Feith-based initiative?

:shrug:

[RedEarth]

42. Great work.... that's a keeper!!

[LSK]

43. simply one of the best posts EVER on DU

K&R and bookmarked.

[Divine Discontent]

48. I concur

One of the most IMPORTANT posts to ever appear on DU, Top 100 out of them millions. This post should be in a section, "Top 100 OP in DU History!"

Very important, and Dems should SLAM the rethuglicans with this right now, over and over...


www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

[WritersBlock]

44. K, B, & R!!

Nope, not Baby Halliburton - "Kicking, bookmarking, & recommending!"

Thank you for posting this!

[Danascot]

45. Intel? We never needed no stinkin' intel

All we needed was an excuse...

Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

snip

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”

Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.”

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761



According to (Paul O'Neill in his book, The Price of Loyalty) the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification.

As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill told the CBS network programme, 60 Minutes. In the book, based largely on his recollections and written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O'Neill said that even as far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1120959,00.html

[Felinity]

58. Wow! (In a bad way)

What strikes me here is the complete disregard for any human costs that would occur for such action. This describes a void where concern for human life, suffering, wanton destruction of property.

The Little Emperor wanted to aggrandize his political stature and thought a war would be just the ticket. LITERALLY sending our troops to die with the dispassion of knocking a pawn off the chessboard.

No wonder he has never attended the funeral of one of our troops; he just could care less.

I think this deserves its own thread, but it may die on the vine as many do.

[Octafish]

46. Outstanding work. Bush knew: He and his cronies lied America into war.

Thanks, LynnTheDem! KBR88 or 89. So many people were recommending your post, so fast, that i can't tell which one it is. Whichever, thank you for your outstanding work and quick reminder.

Bush and his cronies knew what they were doing when they lied America into war. It's what his warmongering Poppy taught him.

[liberalla]

49. WOW! This is an incredible post!

GREAT compilation!
Thank you for your time and effort in putting it together. I'm sure I will refer back to this in the future.
:kick:

[Disturbed]

50. Thank you, Lynnn.

Your work is appreciated.

[hwmnbn]

51. Has this been put in the research section?....

If not, that is where this comprehensive post belongs.

Thanks for the outstanding work!




K&R

[Lasher]

52. Colin and Condi both new better and said so in 2001

During a February 24 2001 press conference during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

On July 29 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asked Rice about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Full article and video clip here.

[MGKrebs]

53. O.I.L.

"The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

LUKoil will sign a contract to give it a role in producing oil from Iran's Azadegan field, Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said in Tehran on Monday.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/12/12/046.html

The Bush administration is warning European oil and gas companies against investing in Iran, trying to head off a push by Tehran to attract new investment by international petroleum giants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/31/AR2007013102166.html

[In Truth We Trust]

54. Grounds for IMPEACHMENT NOW!

[Cobalt Violet]

55. K & R

[lonestarnot]

57. How bout that bad intel!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. thanks so much Lynn. This is stellar. You should send it to Frontline ! n/t

[Mr Rabble]

60. Excellent research. Thank you!

[spanone]

61. Damn, what a great post!

Too late to recommend, but heck, I'll recommend it anyway. Great work>

[montanto]

62. Wow! truly amazing work. K/R

[KansDem]

63. Memo to the Supreme Court: "Never send a boy to do a President's job"

Simple as that...

Fantastic thread and links. Excellent job! :thumbsup:

Kick! (too late to recommend :()

[liberalla]

64. Another kick for one of the best posts ever

bookmarked
:kick: