posted 06-11-2003 10:04 AM            

By Jim Grichar

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar19.html

George Bush and His Axis of Deceit Start To Sweat!

by Jim Grichar (aka Exx-Gman) June 5, 2003

George Bush – in a globe-trotting mode to convince the U.S. public and the rest of the world that he is a man of peace – and his Axis of Deceit are beginning to sweat as they try to cook and serve up a new justification for the immoral, unjust and costly U.S. war on Iraq.

Bush and his Axis of Deceit are now putting out the word – through sympathetic Congressmen – that the war on Iraq was designed to change the situation in the Middle East to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace. This rationalization, which has been simmering in a pot on the back burner of Chef George’s foreign and military policy stove, has apparently replaced the lies that the war was fought to remove Iraq’s chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to bring democracy to Iraq.

Much to George’s and the Axis’ chagrin, the press and some members of Congress are turning up the heat further, trying to find out what George and his Axis buddies really knew about Iraq’s WMD before the attack. Will Bush lose public support in a way similar to what is happening to Tony Blair in Britain, who is now facing a public uproar over the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq? After all, Blair likely used the same intelligence reports used by the Bush Administration as the CIA and the Pentagon’s military intelligence apparatus have extensive links to British intelligence.

Cooking the Intelligence Estimate

According to the New York Times, last fall the CIA coordinated a top-secret government-wide national intelligence estimate of the Iraqi weapons situation that the Bush Administration used, in part, to justify the war on Iraq. According to the 2002 estimate, Iraq had WMD and could use them. Now, with no WMD having been found in Iraq, the estimate, which some charge was cooked up to justify the war on Iraq, has come into question.

George Tenet, the CIA Director, claimed that the estimate was not cooked: "The integrity of the process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." But according to the Times, several CIA officials did not defend the actions of a special Pentagon intelligence unit (created by Donald Rumsfeld to give intelligence the slant that Rummy and his neocon Axis colleagues want) that highlighted information from Iraqi exiles, information that CIA analysts discounted heavily. Some CIA analysts reported pressure from high-ups to make their reports conform to the Bush Administration line.

As a result of Congressional criticism and intended hearings on "prewar intelligence," the CIA has set up an internal review team to look at all the raw intelligence – including documents from the Pentagon’s special intelligence unit – and to find out what role the Pentagon’s intelligence unit played in last fall’s estimate and in other intelligence assessments that supported a war on Iraq to root out WMD.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come in for even rougher treatment, thus far, than the Bush Administration. Unlike an American President, who can duck questions from the press and have his appointees stonewall Congressional inquiries, the British Prime Minister must stand in Parliament frequently to answer questions from both supporting and opposition members of Parliament. Ian Duncan Smith, the leader of the opposition Tory Party, called for a public investigation to clear up the questions about Blair cooking up and modifying intelligence information to justify an attack on Iraq to remove WMD. Prime Minister Blair declined, saying that a special committee will look into it and will assure that a censored report – censored to preserve classified information from disclosure – would validate his claims!

Thus, the two leaders of the so-called coalition of the willing – i.e., those willing to attack Iraq – find themselves in a bind over the veracity of intelligence reports on Iraqi possession of WMD.

"Wag the Dog"

Because neither the Bush Administration nor British Prime Minister Blair – nor their various intelligence minions – had any concrete proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and because American occupation of Iraq is going to last for many years – contrary to the nonsense put out by the Axis of Deceit, the public in both nations is starting to demand a truthful accounting of whether or not the various intelligence agencies provided a truthful analysis of Iraqi WMD or whether the estimates were cooked for political purposes.

But rather than sit back and let his opposition sling mud at him, Bush and his Axis of Deceit appear to have devised a scheme – a modified version of what appeared in the recent movie, "Wag the Dog" – to draw the U.S. public’s attention away from the question of cooked intelligence analyses by taking a trip to the Middle East to mediate peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Hence the statement to the press by Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who claimed that if getting rid of Saddam meant that a road map for a Middle East peace would work, then it was worth it, whether or not the Iraqis had WMD.

While some sort of Middle East peace negotiations were likely, the real question is why would Bush risk his reputation and public standing by making a risky trip to the Middle East, risking his prestige on trying to do what has been virtually impossible for more than 50 years, that is, devise a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Other U.S. presidents have avoided taking trips to the Middle East for this purpose, and have, at the maximum, brought Israeli and Palestinian leaders to Washington, but only after they have shown some willingness to compromise. In this case, Bush has stuck his neck out a mile, and given the way Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have gone in the past, he is really betting on a long shot.

But then that leads rational observers to what is likely the real, core, reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that is the control of the massive Middle East oil reserves. While Bush and his Axis of Deceit, as well as their British minion Tony Blair, will continue to obfuscate on the question of cooked intelligence estimates on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and will try to focus the public’s attention on making peace in the Middle East – for which they will now claim that the war on Iraq was fought – they are starting to run out of explanations for the U.S. attack on Iraq. And this will be especially true if Bush fails to get a binding Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

posted 06-11-2003 10:15 AM            

From: "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2958138.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2958138.stm

US Senate opens Iraq weapons probe

This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration The US Congress has ordered an investigation into possible abuse of intelligence information about alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The inquiries, launched by both Republican and Democratic politicians, will include public hearings that will be televised live.

The CIA is reported to be prepared to co-operate fully. This is the first serious domestic pressure on the Bush administration to give a detailed explanation of its pre-war claims about weapons of mass destruction.

The announcement came the day that Hans Blix - the man the UN appointed to find out whether Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - submitted what is likely to be his last report to the Security Council before leaving the post.

The inquiries are to be conducted by the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. The situation is becoming one where the credibility of the administration and Congress is being challenged Senator John Warner Analysis: Was intelligence manipulated? They are expected to hold a joint public hearing later in the month. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, called on Mr Bush to explain why the administration cited dubious and later discredited documents to back its claims about Iraqi weapons. "To date, you have offered no explanation as to why you and your most senior advisers made repeated allegations based on forged documents," Mr Waxman said in a letter to the president.

Assurances

Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the armed services panel, said he had ordered the inquiry because of the depth and seriousness of the issue. "The situation is becoming one where the credibility of the administration and Congress is being challenged," he said. Mr Warner said he had been assured by CIA director George Tenet that all the statements made by the administration on the subject and all the intelligence supporting those statements would be supplied to the committee.

It is likely that senior officials such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell will be summoned before Congress.

On Monday the administration defended the intelligence it presented to justify the war against Iraq.

Mr Powell, speaking in Rome, said he thought the evidence that Iraq had continued to develop weapons of mass destruction was "overwhelming". In a 40-page report submitted on Monday, chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix presented no definitive answer about whether Iraq still possessed WMD, but outlined unanswered questions on the issue.

posted 06-11-2003 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

New York -- An Iranian government official with ties to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said Tehran had received intelligence indicating that the government of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was indeed hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD)from UN inspectors.

---

posted 06-11-2003 12:50 PM            

In no way do I support the Bush/Clinton/Rockafeller/Hillary/Bush SR crime family.
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001177.html

posted 06-11-2003 01:23 PM            

Just check the news, what party is now using the no-WMD issue to try and discredit Bush?

Look at most of your posts, and they are right out of the liberal Democrat discrediting Bush campaign playbook of the day....Look at the issues you were talking about BEFORE the war. Again we saw anti-war Democrats using the same tactics and issues.

posted 06-11-2003 02:17 PM            

Bu$h LIED about Iraq's alleged WMD so he could go to war to get Iraq's OIL and hand contacts to his buddies at Bechtel, KBR, Carlyle group, Fluor, and Halliburton not to mention defense contracts.

Even Wolfawitz admitted it and said Iraq is "Swimming in Oil"

Follow the money.

posted 06-11-2003 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Nope...has nothing to do with Iran..at all.

---

What a dumbass! You completely misunderstood the point. Iran agrees with the Bush administration that Saddam had (in the recent past) weapons of mass destruction. Are you now saying that Bush persuaded Iran to lie for his administration too? If Bush was lying...then the UN was lying, Congress was lying, British intelligence was lying...because nobody disputed the fact that Saddam had WMDs....

posted 06-11-2003 02:54 PM            

See...It went from (in a few short months)

BUSH: "Saddam has Weapons of Mass destruction"

Rumsfeld: "Saddam is developing Chemical weapons."

To.........

BUSH: "Saddam HAD Weapons of Mass
destruction"

Rumsfeld: "I doubt we will ever find WMD's"

posted 06-11-2003 03:38 PM            

One Year Before The War Started: "Don't Aggress Against Iraq"

by (R) Congressman Ron Paul, MD

I was recently asked why I thought it was a bad idea for the President to initiate a war against Iraq. I responded by saying that I could easily give a half a dozen reasons why; and if I took a minute, I could give a full dozen. For starters, here is a half a dozen.

Number one, Congress has not given the President the legal authority to wage war against Iraq as directed by the Constitution, nor does he have U.N. authority to do so. Even if he did, it would not satisfy the rule of law laid down by the Framers of the Constitution.

Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.

Number three, a war against Iraq initiated by the United States cannot be morally justified. The argument that someday in the future Saddam Hussein might pose a threat to us means that any nation, any place in the world is subject to an American invasion without cause. This would be comparable to the impossibility of proving a negative.

Number four, initiating a war against Iraq will surely antagonize all neighboring Arab and Muslim nations as well as the Russians, the Chinese, and the European Union, if not the whole world. Even the English people are reluctant to support Tony Blair's prodding of our President to invade Iraq. There is no practical benefit for such action. Iraq could end up in even more dangerous hands like Iran.

Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous.

Number six, the cost of a war against Iraq would be prohibitive. We paid a heavy economic price for the Vietnam war in direct cost, debt and inflation. This coming war could be a lot more expensive. Our national debt is growing at a rate greater than $250 billion per year. This will certainly accelerate. The dollar cost will be the least of our concerns compared to the potential loss of innocent lives, both theirs and ours. The systematic attack on civil liberties that accompanies all wars cannot be ignored. Already we hear cries for resurrecting the authoritarian program of conscription in the name of patriotism, of course.

Could any benefit come from all this warmongering? Possibly. Let us hope and pray so. It should be evident that big government is anathema to individual liberty. In a free society, the role of government is to protect the individual's right to life and liberty. The biggest government of all, the U.N. consistently threatens personal liberties and U.S. sovereignty. But our recent move toward unilateralism hopefully will inadvertently weaken the United Nations. Our participation more often than not lately is conditioned on following the international rules and courts and trade agreements only when they please us, flaunting the consensus, without rejecting internationalism on principle- as we should.

The way these international events will eventually play out is unknown, and in the process we expose ourselves to great danger. Instead of replacing today's international government, (the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, the international criminal court) with free and independent republics, it is more likely that we will see a rise of militant nationalism with a penchant for solving problems with arms and protectionism rather than free trade and peaceful negotiations.

The last thing this world needs is the development of more nuclear weapons, as is now being planned in a pretense for ensuring the peace. We would need more than an office of strategic information to convince the world of that.

What do we need? We need a clear understanding and belief in a free society, a true republic that protects individual liberty, private property, free markets, voluntary exchange and private solutions to social problems, placing strict restraints on government meddling in the internal affairs of others.

posted 06-11-2003 04:32 PM            

Address:http://larouchein2004.net/pages/

pressreleases/2003/030607cheney.html

Waxman's letter.

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 7 -- In the midst of a growing mountain of evidence that Vice President Dick Cheney led a battery of senior Bush Administration officials, in repeatedly using what was known to be a forged document from a foreign government to corral Congressional and public support for the Iraq War, Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche issued a sharply worded statement insisting on a full investigation documenting exactly what Vice President Cheney knew, when he knew it, and precisely what he did contrary to what he knew to be the truth.

The charges against Cheney are centered on the fact that the Vice President repeatedly used documents, allegedly from the government of Niger, purporting to show Iraqi government efforts to purchase large quantities of uranium precursor, "yellow cake" from that African nation, long after he learned that the documents were forged.

On June 2, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to President George W. Bush, demanding a full explanation from the Administration, as to why senior Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the President himself "cited forged evidence about Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear materials."

In a statement released through his national spokeswoman, Debra Hanania-Freeman, LaRouche was quoted as saying, "Let there be no mistake about it. The nature of these charges constitute hard grounds for impeachment. The question has to be taken head on. It is time for Dick Cheney to come clean. I want to know exactly what Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it. The charges are grave and specific and leave no wiggle room. Determining who knew what and when is, at this time, an urgent matter of national security."

Freeman, citing LaRouche's own track record in challenging the avalanche of disinformation and "spun" intelligence products thrown up by the Straussian neo-conservative network inside the Bush Administration, to launch the recent war against Iraq, said that LaRouche was uniquely positioned to hold not only the Administration itself, but also the other Democratic Presidential candidates accountable for their uncritical endorsement of what amounts to an ongoing fraud against the Congress and the American people.

She said that the chronology of events documented in the Waxman letter, indicates that Vice President Cheney was among the first Administration officials to be informed that the Niger documents were forgeries, and that he nevertheless continued to assert the Niger-Iraq uranium story as fact. "This kind of witting, repeated fraud against the Congress and the people of the United States represents a crime of the highest order. And, as such, I can tell you that Mr. LaRouche will see to it that a determination is made and made quickly, and that he will not back off until appropriate and severe action against those perpetrating this fraud is taken."

Appendix: Chronology

* Sometime in late 2001, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency received a series of documents on the letterhead of the Niger government, detailing repeated attempts by Iraq to purchase vast quantities of uranium oxide "yellow cake," a precursor for nuclear weapons.

* In early 2002, Vice President Cheney requested that the documents be investigated and, as a result, a former U.S. Ambassador to African countries was dispatched to Niger.

* Sometime in February 2002, officials of the CIA, the State Department and the Vice President were informed by the ex-Ambassador that the documents were forgeries. The fact that the documents were forgeries was reported around the Bush Administration.

* Nevertheless, on Sept. 24, 2002, Bush Administration officials and CIA officials briefed Congressional leaders that the Iraqis were attempting to purchase "yellow cake" from an African country. The same day, the Office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair published a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, foisting the same false information about the Niger uranium purchases.

* On Dec. 19, 2003, the U.S. State Department published a one-page fact sheet, disputing Iraq's weapons declarations to the United Nations Security Council, again citing the Niger sales of "yellow cake" to Iraq.

* During January 2003, every top national security official of the Bush Administration, including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush, himself, cited Iraq's efforts to obtain nuclear materials from Africa, in briefings, interviews and, in the case of George Bush, in his State of the Union address.

* On March 7, 2003, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) delivered testimony before the United Nations Security Council, in which he exposed the Niger documents as shoddy frauds.

* Even following the ElBaradei public revelations, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on March 16 on "Meet the Press," repeated the Iraq nuclear material lie. The next day, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) wrote his first letter to President Bush, demanding an accounting of the repetition of proven fabrications. - 30 - Paid for by LaRouche in 2004 Top PRESS RELEASE Contact: Angela Vullo Tel: 1-800-929-7566

posted 06-11-2003 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

No the UN believed BU$H and Powell and their allegations.

---

No, the UN believed the findings of weapons inspectors and the admission of Saddam Hussein that he had weapons of mass destruction, and the fact that he used them on his own people....long before GW Bush was elected.

quote:

---

See...It went from (in a few short months)

BUSH: "Saddam has Weapons of Mass destruction"

Rumsfeld: "Saddam is developing Chemical weapons."

To.........

BUSH: "Saddam HAD Weapons of Mass
destruction"

Rumsfeld: "I doubt we will ever find WMD's"

---