News and Views you don't have to lose:
He lied to the sovereign people of the US
As reported yesterday, Bush's hand-picked Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities has basically exonerated the administration for Iraq while laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of the intelligence community.It is time once again to reach down into the memory hole.White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons".
However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons. "I would just say there is not much support for that (nuclear) theory around here," said a department of energy specialist
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/4/1/83840/12693
Reported on April Fools' Day 2005 that the report to the president of the "Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction":
Comment: More BS from the fascists.
The presidential commission on intelligence left little doubt that President Bush and his top aides had gotten what they wanted, not what they needed, when they were told that Saddam Hussein had a threatening arsenal of illicit weapons.
Former Senator Bob Graham said, "Thus far, this administration has been characterized by a stunning amount of indifference to what has occurred," he said, adding: "This administration has held nobody accountable for anything, unless you count Tenet's resignation. Of course, he then turned around and received the nation's highest civilian award. They have been less than fully cooperative with the nonexecutive agencies which have attempted to find out what happened. It's inexplicable to me, at a pure level of management, why the administration has not held people accountable."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01policy.html
As John Pilger said in a speech on the second anniversary of the war, the Iraq war was "an invasion, which, under the universally acknowledged and respected terms of the Nuremberg judgment in 1946, the cornerstone of international law, was 'a paramount war crime.' That's not my rhetoric, nor is it agit-prop. It's the law of civilized people. And it's our job to help people understand the great crime committed in their name, and how those who claim to speak for us, such as the media, have normalized the unthinkable: as if no crime has been committed, as if thousands of people have not been murdered, as if it was all merely a respectable adjustment of the 'world order.' My point is, they are not respectable; they may wear the suits of respectability and travel with their fawning courts, but they are prima facie criminals, be assured."
Mr. Bush took a very different view of its main message. He put his emphasis on the opposite problem: the hazard of missing or underestimating threats 'in a dangerous new century.' The president never discussed how the overestimation of Iraq's threat contributed to his decision to go to war. -- Mark Jensen.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2536/
(http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2494/)
With one week until Congress voted on authorizing Bush to use force, Graham was impatient. On October 3, 2002, The CIA, Graham said, were monkeying with democracy. The agency was not telling his committee what they needed to know about the Iraqi regime. Tenet was damaging the ability of Congress to assess the need for military action.
On October 9, 2002 almost a week after Tenet received his whipping at the hands of Graham, the senator's hardman approach paid off when the director of the CIA admitted that the only reason Saddam would use WMDs against the United States was if he was backed into a corner -- due to a strike by the American military -- and realized he was about to fall. Saddam, Tenet was saying, would only become the nightmare that Bush envisaged, if Bush attacked him first.
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/4/1/83840/12693
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
As reported yesterday, Bush's hand-picked Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities has basically exonerated the administration for Iraq while laying the blame squarely on the shoulders of the intelligence community.It is time once again to reach down into the memory hole.White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.
Mr Bush repeated a claim already made by senior members of his administration that Iraq has attempted to import hardened aluminium tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons".
However, US government experts on nuclear weapons and centrifuges have suggested that they were more likely to be used for making conventional weapons. "I would just say there is not much support for that (nuclear) theory around here," said a department of energy specialist
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/4/1/83840/12693
Reported on April Fools' Day 2005 that the report to the president of the "Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction":
Comment: More BS from the fascists.
The presidential commission on intelligence left little doubt that President Bush and his top aides had gotten what they wanted, not what they needed, when they were told that Saddam Hussein had a threatening arsenal of illicit weapons.
Former Senator Bob Graham said, "Thus far, this administration has been characterized by a stunning amount of indifference to what has occurred," he said, adding: "This administration has held nobody accountable for anything, unless you count Tenet's resignation. Of course, he then turned around and received the nation's highest civilian award. They have been less than fully cooperative with the nonexecutive agencies which have attempted to find out what happened. It's inexplicable to me, at a pure level of management, why the administration has not held people accountable."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01policy.html
As John Pilger said in a speech on the second anniversary of the war, the Iraq war was "an invasion, which, under the universally acknowledged and respected terms of the Nuremberg judgment in 1946, the cornerstone of international law, was 'a paramount war crime.' That's not my rhetoric, nor is it agit-prop. It's the law of civilized people. And it's our job to help people understand the great crime committed in their name, and how those who claim to speak for us, such as the media, have normalized the unthinkable: as if no crime has been committed, as if thousands of people have not been murdered, as if it was all merely a respectable adjustment of the 'world order.' My point is, they are not respectable; they may wear the suits of respectability and travel with their fawning courts, but they are prima facie criminals, be assured."
Mr. Bush took a very different view of its main message. He put his emphasis on the opposite problem: the hazard of missing or underestimating threats 'in a dangerous new century.' The president never discussed how the overestimation of Iraq's threat contributed to his decision to go to war. -- Mark Jensen.
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2536/
(http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/2494/)
With one week until Congress voted on authorizing Bush to use force, Graham was impatient. On October 3, 2002, The CIA, Graham said, were monkeying with democracy. The agency was not telling his committee what they needed to know about the Iraqi regime. Tenet was damaging the ability of Congress to assess the need for military action.
On October 9, 2002 almost a week after Tenet received his whipping at the hands of Graham, the senator's hardman approach paid off when the director of the CIA admitted that the only reason Saddam would use WMDs against the United States was if he was backed into a corner -- due to a strike by the American military -- and realized he was about to fall. Saddam, Tenet was saying, would only become the nightmare that Bush envisaged, if Bush attacked him first.
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/4/1/83840/12693
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 4:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home