Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 19, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

The Divide

Truthdig Bazaar


By Gore Vidal



By Richard Ford

more items

Ear to the Ground

White House Fabricated Iraq Intelligence, Book Alleges

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 4, 2008

According to Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal reporter and best-selling Bush critic, the White House ordered the CIA to fabricate evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida and knew before the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The White House denies the allegations, published in Suskind’s new book, “The Way of the World.”


A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.

Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery—adamantly denied by the White House—was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cann4ing, August 12, 2008 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

Thanks Cyrena.  M/R’s perceptions of Iraq are deeply colored by a corporate media that acts as a propaganda network.  I have no doubt that Saddam was a ruthless dictator—aided in his rise to power by the CIA.  But let’s examine one of the atrocities our media laid at his feet, Halabja.

The basic facts remain in dispute.  Stephen Pelletiere, a former CIA analyst, received the assignment to investigate the attack from the U.S. Army.  Pelletier asserts Halabja was infiltrated by Iranians; that the decision to use chemical weapons was made by a local Iraqi commander (as opposed to higher-ups like “Chemical Ali” or Saddam Hussein) and that Kurds were killed as “collateral damage.”  He notes a separate D.I.A. investigation concluded that “the Kurds had been killed by Iranian gas, not by Iraqi gas.  And they determined this because the extremities were blue, and that indicated a cyanide-based gas, and the Iraqis didn’t have it.”

Per John Stauber, in the wake of this event, Colin Powell, then Reagan’s national security adviser, led a 1988 effort to block passage of bipartisan legislation to prevent genocide.  During the buildup to “Operation Desert Storm,” the Bush I administration avoided all mention of Halabja. 

“Halabja was mentioned in 188 news stories in the U.S. in 1988, the year it occurred.  It was rarely mentioned…in subsequent years….Between the invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 and the end of Operation Desert Storm on February 27, 1991, Halabja received only 39 mentions.  And during the entire following decade, it barely averaged 16 mentions per year.”

Halabja was resurrected in the press only after the Bush II administration began pushing for an invasion in September 2002, with the number of mentions increasing to 57 in February 2003, up to 145 by March 2003—the month of the invasion.

Where the Bush I administration and Senator Dole had fought sanctions against Iraq in 1988 and where official sources had, at that time, looked to Iran as the source, on 9/28/03 Colin Powell appeared on ABC where he asserted that the March 1988 attack on Halabja involved an instance where “Saddam Hussein gassed the people with VX, with sarin, nerve agents, and it killed 5,000 people in one day; that was 15 years ago.  Now, if you want to believe that he suddenly gave up that weapon…I think you’re…a bit naïve….” 

The pace of corporate media “news” which uncritically parrots official sources sans critical reflection that places official claims into historical context inculcates a collective amnesia.  “Oceania is at war with Eurasia.  Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.”  George Orwell, “1984”

Report this

By cyrena, August 12, 2008 at 2:11 am Link to this comment

From the jacket flap of Sheldon Wolin’s “Democracy Incorporated”

“Democracy is struggling in America—- by now this statement is almost cliché. But what if the country is no longer a democracy at all? In Democracy Incorporated, Sheldon Wolin considers the unthinkable: has America unwittingly morphed into a new ad strange kind of political hybrid, one where economic and state powers are cojoined and virtually unbridled? Can the nation check its descent into what the author terms ‘inverted totalitarianism”?

Wolin portrays a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive—- and where elites are eager to keep them that way. At best the nation has become a ‘managed democracy’ where the public is shepherded, not sovereign. At worst it is a place where corporate power no longer answers to state controls. Wolin makes clear that today’s America is in no way morally or politically comparable to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, yet he warns that unchecked economic power risks verging on total power and has its own unnerving pathologies.

Wolin examines the myths and mythmaking that justify today’s politics, the quest for an ever-expanding economy, and the perverse attractions of an endless war on terror. He argues passionately that democracy’s best hope lies in citizens themselves learning anew to exercise power at the local level.

Democracy Incorporated is one of the most worrying diagnoses of America’s political ills to emerge in decades. It is sure to be a lightening rod for political debate for years to come.”

Sheldon S. Wolin is professor emeritus of politics at Princeton University.

Comments from the back..

“For half a century, Sheldon Wolin has been one of the most distinguished and influential political theorists in the United States and a perceptive observer of the American Political scene. In his magisterial latest book, Wolin shows himself at the height of his powers as he presents a highly original, sober, and persuasive account of a number of tendencies in contemporary American society that constitute a significant danger for the future of constitutional democracy. If totalitarianism establishes itself in the United States, it will be in the inverted form Wolin analyzes in this important book.”

~Raymond Geuss, University of Cambridge

Just as a reminder, for those who may have missed it, Chalmers Johnson reviewed this in-depth a few months back, here on TD

Here’s the link for anyone who might want to check it out.

Oh, the book is published by Princeton University Press

Report this

By cyrena, August 12, 2008 at 1:34 am Link to this comment


Thanks for the diddy. I actually have the same thing (minus the reference to the deniers) on my front door, in the form of what I guess can only be called what it is..a bumper sticker. Sounds tacky I know, it’s far more than tacky for bush lies that cause millions of people to die. Anyway, that could be why a handful around here, (SPECIFICALLY THE CORPORATE ADMINISTRATORS) like to hassle me, though it would have been far easier for them to just ask me to remove the thing. (not that I would have, but at least I’d have more verification of what their ‘issues’ are).

R/M like to selectively draw on the past history of Iraq (but more specifically Saddam) for all of their apologies for the millions of deaths, and the destruction of a sovereign nation state.

I don’t know of ANY ‘reasonable’ person who would not admit to most of Saddam’s crimes, MANY of them aided and abetted by some of the very same characters that manufactured all of these bogus claims as a reason for the destruction.

But at the end of the day, Dick Bush has succeeded in slaughtering 1000+ times the number of people that Saddam ever did, in over 30 years worth of his tyrannical nationalism. Oh yes…Dick Bush has slaughtered and destroyed so much more, that it cannot ever be measured.

I’ve had the fortune of visiting that part of the world in the past, and I’m so very glad that I did. Mesopotamia, the birthplace of civilization, was indeed a beautiful place. But those were far better times then, under that rule of Saddam, and I don’t know any people who are still around who can make a comparison to things as they were under Saddam, to the way things were under the rule of the British before that.

I did read one lengthy interview from an old Iraqi who does still remember the occupation of the British though, comparing it to the occupations of the US now. In short, he was not kind or complimentary to the current US behavior at all. All in all, the British were far more humane and respectful of the humanity of the native occupants of that region, and that was long before the advent of international law REQUIRING such measures.

That said, the behavior of the Dick Bush administration has been 1000% criminal on more levels than we can even count, though there are certainly several groups of us trying to keep track, and get the paperwork ready, as we continue to update it. Whether the do-nothings like Pelosi and the rest of the gang complicit in allowing the destruction ever get around to impeaching them or not, I’m committed, (along with many others) to seeing them all at The Hague. If Vincent Bugliosi can get the ball rolling on murder prosecutions for them, I’ll help in any way I can. Just find me a place to put my laptop, and make sure there’s a working coffee pot.

Meantime, I’m about half-way through Sheldon Wolin’s latest masterpiece, “Democracy Incorporated: managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” It’s a must read for anyone who actually wants to understand how it happened, so I highly recommend it. In fact, I’ll post the text from the jacket in another post.

By-the-way…good decision on the realization that it REALLY IS POINTLESS, to attempt to engage either of the ideologues with reason, logic, or any combination thereof. I understand your reluctance in that acceptance, just because you’re infinitely more patient than I am these days. I can only do so much insanity, even when the person really can’t help themselves. So, I have to take that in very small doses, and can only extend that to loved ones. With willful ignorance, I have ZERO tolerance, if only because there are far too many other people and efforts to spend the energy on. My energy is not infinite, and I despise waste.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 11, 2008 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena, I have reluctantly come to the realization that it is pointless to present facts or reason to intellectually dishonest, neocon trolls.  So, instead, I will post a little ditty and do my best to ignore their future mumblings.

Bush lied.
People died.
And Marshall & Rus7355 have not been able
to produce a single fact to show otherwise.

Report this

By jack, August 11, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: I sense a pattern here.

That’s right. It’s called “limited hangout” - just enough verifiable info. to make you think you’re getting it. The manipulations runs so deep, it’s beyond imagination.

The Global War Of Terror is not the creation of the USA nor any other nation per se. It was authored by the New World Oligarchy. It’s not designed to benefit any nations. Only the global finance oligarchs.

R/M:  once again, your Left/Right gambit is declined. Please do take it to the amateur corner where it belongs.

Report this

By Marshall, August 11, 2008 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

By Rus7355, August 11 at 3:02 am #

I agree that the anti-war left suffers from collective amnesia regarding Iraq.  And much of what is posted here is severely revisionist in nature.  It’s even spilled over to Afghanistan to a great extent; either by ignoring it altogether despite its importance, or simply lumping it together with Iraq into the “U.S. Imperialism” charge.  Although there was a sizable populist anti-war movement against our involvement in Afghanistan at the time, virtually every policy maker supported our invasion.  But those who hate the current administration have no use for historical fact that spoils their blame game.  With the apparent defection of Suskind’s two most prominent sources, and his innuendo that their about face was part of a larger conspiracy, I suspect this latest attack (which is already based entirely on hearsay) will dissolve as quickly as past “bombshells” that turned out to be duds.  If he had some physical proof then he’d have a case, but he doesn’t.  I’m sure he’ll make some good money off the book though, just as I’m sure Tony Snow did.  I sense a pattern here.

Report this

By Marshall, August 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

By cann4ing, August 10 at 3:23 pm #

I’m afraid I don’t speak for Rus, so I’m not going to attempt to address your questions.  My points about the Suskind book are contained in my earlier posts so if you want to dispute them, you’re free to do so.  So far, you’ve posted a number of inaccuracies regarding things like Congress’ access to pre-war intel., WH involvement in intelligence reports, and timing of U.S. Iraq policy that make me think you’re reciting left-wing talking points without doing your own research.  Doing your own research (using legitimate sources, not “private” news sites) is crucial to informed discussion.

Report this

By cyrena, August 10, 2008 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

With Rus so rooted in the past, I thought it might be helpful to actually post that information from 10 years ago. I don’t know that ANYONE has ever denied the illegal activity that Bill Clinton pursued in the strike against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq 10 years ago, and I’ve never denied that his strike in the Balkans was illegal as well, having done both without authority or resolution from the UN Security Council.
He used the same excuse then, as Bush II has used since, (except of course Dick Bush specifically forged documents to try to make their case, and that has long since been confirmed).
Still, the bottom line argument for Clinton, (on the eve of his impeachment) was that Saddam had failed to live up to inspections, and that Saddam had used these biological weapons before. (true, but for whatever the reasons, nobody bothered to stop him then).
Anyway, since rus is so rooted in past history, with the theory of his apologist argument based on the ‘They did it too’ rationale, I thought it would be helpful to provide the ‘they did it too’ text. It’s a pretty sad testimony to the mentality of anyone who tries to use that excuse for mass murder and all of the associated war crimes that accompany the illegal invasion and permanent occupation of another sovereign nation state.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Continued at the link

Then there’s THIS…kinda makes ya think this might all be a little bit of a partisan nature eh, with oh so many more dead people (them and us) this time around.
Republicans skeptical of Iraq attack on eve of impeachment vote
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16)—White House officials insist a looming impeachment vote in the House had no bearing on President Clinton’s decision to bomb Iraq—but planes were still in the air as a chorus of critics began voicing skepticism about the timing.
(links provided below)

In this story:
•  House intelligence chair says not consulted
•  Torricelli calls GOP criticism ‘unforgivable’
•  Eagleburger: ‘Timing stinks’
•  Impeachment debate delayed
•  Rep. Solomon: Attack designed to create ‘leverage’

Rus, Marshall, please help us understand how ANY of this changes the fact that GWB INTENTIONALLY lied to the American public, forged documents, (knowing full well that Saddam Hussein was NOT in possession of any nuclear OR biological weapons) in order to invade and occupy that nation in 2003.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 10, 2008 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

Absolute rubbish, Marshall, and what’s worse is that you are well aware of it.  I have repeatedly quoted for you passages from books, you know those little printed things with pages that you probably seldom read.  I and other posters have repeatedly referred you to a variety of sources which have thoroughly debunked each and every effort you have made to defend the indefensible—the Bush regime’s willful prevarications in taking this nation to war. 

As to your pal, Rus, I feel as if I am attempting to reason with a three year old.  But perhaps I am missing something.  Perhaps he is this brilliant mind and I just don’t see it.

So perhaps you, Marshall, can help me out with what I see as gaping holes in Rus’s logic.

The topic of this article is that the White House fabricated intelligence.  The author making that accusation, Ron Suskind, has lengthy recorded interviews of individuals highly placed in our intelligence community which support that allegation, showing that the White House, operating through the Cheney/Rumsfeld office of special plans, forged a document in order to support Cheney’s fraudulent claim that there were links between al Qaeda & the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

So please answer for me two simple questions:

(1)  How does quoting a statement made by this or that Democrat in 1998 to the effect that they then “believed” that Iraq possessed WMD refute the Suskind allegation?

(2)  Better still, how does quoting statements made by anti-war activists in 1998 to the effect that Iraq was not a threat refute the Suskind allegation?

So be so kind as to fill in what I see as gaping holes in our Rus’ logic, since, to date, he hasn’t.

The interesting thing is that throughout this entire sordid affair—the 1998 statements made by students quoted by Rus, the position taken by the anti-war movement during history’s largest pre-war anti-war demonstrations carried out in multiple countries, and now, that Iraq did not possess WMD and was not a threat to the U.S.—the nation which spends more on weaponry than the rest of the world combined and possess the most powerful arsenal ever known to man, have proved to be smack dead on accurate while “every” claim advanced by three successive administrations to the contrary has proved to be dead wrong.

Report this

By Marshall, August 10, 2008 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

By cann4ing, August 9 at 7:45 pm #

I officially dub you a waste of my time.  You never support your claims with references, routinely present your opinion as fact, employ ad hominem (ad nauseum), ignore those who refute you with legitimate links, then dismiss entire fact-filled posts as “eroneous”.  This doesn’t amount to reasoned discussion or any display of critical thinking on your part, and personally I need that in a discussion.  Take care.

Report this

By jack, August 10, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The argument in this thread, in paraphrase, “Clinton regime targeted Iraq before Bush regime,” is true but meaningless. Why?  Going as far back as Ford, the POTUS is a puppet - installed and directed by the shadow regime and none of it is hard to prove. But attempting to analyze their endless sleight of hands usually attracts condemnation of the “tin-foil” variety. So what?

One analysis holds that Suskind’s book is actually commissioned by a faction within the shadow network, to help usher the neo-cons out, since they’ve failed so badly. Failed what, the occupation? No, the entire enterprise. The Iraq Study Group signaled the beginning of their end. It concluded they’re fools to have invaded at all, literally failing Machiavelli 101. Everything was in place for the next move on the “Grand Chessboard.” They’d been handed the “Clash of Civilizations,” literally on a platter - the platter of Lower Manhattan. But rather than setting up new proxy wars, and expanding management of the ME more or less along the lines so well-established by Brzezinski and Gates,  the Neo-cons’ Nietzchien hubris got the best of them.

This is in no way off topic. It puts in its place the Left/Right national political charade. But how can this be so well hidden? Actually it’s not. If investigated it becomes obvious. But, who in the MSM (even if it weren’t managed by the CIA) would act to kill the cash cow that is the national election industry, i.e. the billions in advertising revenue generated from many sides, thousands of serious salaries and more: an endless parade of books, lecture tours, academic careers, consultations etc. all built on analyses of the minutia of the Left/Right Charade.

Almost nothing has anything to do with which party is in power. They’re both War Parties and they both take their marching orders from the shadows. Black-ops did not abate after the Church Hearings, nor the Iran/Contra scandal,  e.g. Cassette tape recordings between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret U.S. Government complicity in the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City. - full report here -

The black-ops never diminish. Dedicated agents (those who genuinely defend the Constitution) do genuinely investigate suspected enemies of the state. But, strategically placed moles guarantee the right patsy takes the fall, thereby fueling the psy-op. The black-ops continually distort all geopolitics in service to global financier interests, and continually fuel the Left/Right Charade that never goes away.

Is Suskind’s book part of the charade, Suskind a rich asset? Hard to say. Is Suskind a useful tool? More likely. No need to comment on the Left/Right distractions being tossed around here. Like I posted before, that’s for amateur hour.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 10, 2008 at 8:45 am Link to this comment

Rus, are you really that monumentally stupid?  Jack and I have just discussed the fact that “regime change” has often been the goal of U.S. imperialism dating back to the 1953 overthrow of the Mossadegh regime in Iran.  I have repeatedly stated that both the Bush I and Clinton administrations carried out that policy with respect to Iraq.  Their goals, like that of Bush II and the neocons, was regime change; access to oil.  They differed only in their methodology, with the Bush II administration being the only one to invest this nation’s most precious resource—the young people serving in the armed forces—some 4,100 of whom are now lying in their graves because the neocons you so admire, people who themselves had never been in combat—as I suspect you have not—lied. 

And there is not one word you have written that serves to absolve the Bush/Cheney regime of this monumental crime against this nation.  Not one!

The fact that you actually believe that by quoting the words of protesters in 1998 to the effect that Iraq was not a threat then somehow debunks the fact that Iraq was not a threat in 2003 when George W. Bush ordered our troops to invade suggests that more than a few of your brain’s synapses are disconnected.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 9, 2008 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

Jack:  I nearly missed your post. It was buried between the tired rants of TD’s resident apologists for the fascist regime now occupying the White House. 

Of course, you are right.  Regime change has often been the goal of the U.S. imperial project—certainly was in the overthrow of the duly elected prime minister Mohammed Massadegh of Iran in 1953—a plot directly carried out by Kermit Roosevelt under the auspices of the CIA which led to the repressive regime of the Shah and his murderous SAVVAK.  The same could be said of our covert actions leading to the ouster of the democratically Jacobo Arbenz in Guatamala that same year leading to a serious of murderous fascist regimes, the CIA-led plot to overthrow the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende; the failed U.S. backed coup that sought to topple the government of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and innumerable other countries in between.

But the topic at hand was “regime change” in Iraq—specifically a plot to utilize brutal UN sanctions, covert activity and intermittent bombing in the so-called “no-fly” zone.  Contrary to the postings of the uninformed, whose erroneous rants are not worthy of a direct repost, was initiated during the administration of George H. W. Bush shortly after the Bush I regime decided against carrying Gulf War I into Baghdad.  It was a policy adopted by and pursued by the Clinton administration.

The basic difference between those two administrations and the current one is that only George W. Bush was willing to carry out the neocon plan to invade Iraq for the purpose of securing a permanent base of operations in the oil rich Middle East.  That makes for a qualitative difference in the methodology by which the American Empire sought to accomplish regime change in Iraq—which falls within the basic subject of the article to which all these comments are appended—the White House fabrication of intelligence in order to mask the true reasons why it wanted to invade.

Report this

By jack, August 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: “[the policy of “regime change”] was initiated by George H. W. Bush.  It continued unabated under Clinton.” - Incorrect.  That policy began with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Post WWII, regime change is business as usual, vis-à-vis Anglo-American Corporate power and the ME, but of course that’s well known, just conveniently forgotten:

“The 1953 Iranian coup d’état, that deposed the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet, was effected by SIS and CIA spies working with anti-Communist civilians and army officers. This coup d’état, AKA Operation Ajax required CIA man Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.‘s bribing government officials, the news media, and businessmen, to allow imposing retired Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi and Imperial Guard Col. Nematollah Nassiri as the government.” -’état

And, the case is often made that the elected government under Mosaddeq was a democracy…the “first” ME democracy? Arguable. How democratic? Again arguable. Nevertheless, when compared to the Pandora’s Box of US/UK-supported thugs that have come and gone, the world over, it wasn’t so bad. The notion that any of the recent thuggery is really intended to impose democracy is as big a lie as the 9/11 Commission Report. That anyone, even pretending honest discourse, would actually shill this lie is incredible in the purest sense of the word.

Report this

By Marshall, August 8, 2008 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

By cann4ing, August 7 at 7:06 am #

“Oh, and just what were those “other considerations”?”

The ‘02 SOTU named three (regime change, establish first Democracy in ME, liberate Iraqi Shiites). Several others were mentioned at other times (allow U.S. to remove unwelcome forces from Saudi soil, end ongoing no-fly enforcement, end Saddam’s support for Palestinian terrorism).  Saddam was shooting at our planes routinely, had attacked several of our allies, and was the ME’s largest mass murderer and human rights abuser.  By themselves, these were not reasons to invade - but coupled with our intelligence community’s clear belief that Saddam had WMD, they were.  BTW - your repeating of the claim that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat won’t make it true.

Three bi-partisan Congressional committees have found no evidence that Bush “knew every one of these claims was false when he made them”.  I’m sorry, but I trust them more than I do you.

“[the policy of “regime change”] was initiated by George H. W. Bush.  It continued unabated under Clinton.”

Incorrect.  That policy began with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

“Bush II willfully deceived Congress…”

Congress doesn’t think so, and has the reports to prove it (Silberman-Rob, SIC, 9/11 commission, as well as British Butler Report).

It’s worth noting, Canning, that everything in my post is documented and not simply a matter of my opinion.

Report this

By Jack, August 8, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ll hold this as my foremost memory of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who during the Iraq debate, was anything but deferential to his president. (Noting that England’s King Charles I first used the term commander in chief in 1639, Byrd said, “You know what happened to Charles I of England? The swordsman cut off the head of Charles I on Jan. 30, 1649. So much for commander in chief.”)

Report this

By cyrena, August 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

Rus selective quote from Al Gore

•  “Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.”

Rus, what don’t you understand about the difference between giving robust support to the groups –of IRAQIS – trying to overthrow Saddam, (having ZERO to do with WMD) and an invasion/occupation of that sovereign nation by another power, based on lies?

Are you aware Rus, that when Bush I invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War, he TOO encouraged the large Shiite population to rebel against Saddam. And when they did, our troops stood by and watched while Saddam slaughtered thousands of them. Again, that had ZERO to do with WMD.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 7, 2008 at 8:06 am Link to this comment

Marshall states:

“The rational for removing Saddam, like any policy, was based on many considerations, primarily - but by no means completely - on the belief by our intelligence that he had WMD.”

Oh, and just what were those “other considerations”?

As Andy Card observed, the Bush regime rolled out its “product line”—WMD.  The President claimed that we had to invade because Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.  He said that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda; stated this gave the “terrorists” access to WMD who could strike us “on any given day” and that we could no afford to allow the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

The evidence that Bush knew every one of these claims was false when he made them is nothing short of compelling to any reasonable mind.  The fact that you stubborning refuse to acknowledge that basic fact reflects that yours is a mind that cannot be described as reasonable.

Also, I never said that Clinton “initiated” the policy of “regime change.”  That policy was initiated by George H. W. Bush.  It continued unabated under Clinton.  The difference was that Pappy Bush & Clinton refused to listen to the neocons who wanted to invade Iraq, who were regarded by the Pappy Bush administration as “the crazies.”  Their preferred methodology was U.N. sanctions coupled with weapons inspections, which they sought to pervert into a means of intelligence gathering on Saddam’s personal security, and periodic assaults by U.S./UK forces in the no-fly zones.

I am by no means an apologist for what Bush I & Clinton did.  Their policies caused the unnecessary deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five.  But none of that has any bearing whatsoever on the question at hand—that Bush II willfully deceived Congress and the American people in order to initiate a war of aggression in Iraq.

Report this

By Marshall, August 7, 2008 at 1:12 am Link to this comment

By cann4ing, August 5 at 9:58 pm #

And again you cherry pick the data that supports you and ignore the rest (even when you’ve cited it in support of previous points). Habbush was one piece of intelligence among many, and the Oct. ‘02 NIE was clear, as were the numerous bipartisan commissions that have rehashed this ground repeatedly.  But none of that matters because you choose to place your entire confidence in a man that few of us knows squat about besides what Suskind claims in his book.

The rational for removing Saddam, like any policy, was based on many considerations, primarily - but by no means completely - on the belief by our intelligence that he had WMD.  Now my guess is that you’d be critical of the administration for relying too heavily on Curveball as a source, yet you have no problem saying he should have based his decision entirely on what Habbush allegedly said?  Can you say “disingenuous”?

And we already know Bush wanted to remove Saddam from early on.  You’ve acknowledged that Clinton instituted official U.S. policy of Regime Change.  There’s no question that Bush took a more aggressive posture on executing that policy after 9/11, so where’s the beef?

Suskind’s case is already beginning to crumble on its own with the defection by his two CIA sources, Richer and Maguire.  But linking his book with the quackery of Bugliosi only further weakens your argument.  I’d leave that guy out of your discussion if I were you.

Report this

By jack, August 7, 2008 at 12:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: By cyrena, August 6 at 5:21 pm #

Now since you are unregistered and post under a fairly common name, we have no idea how you support your own brand.

Ceryna, please, I have no “brand” - you seem concerned with my “identity,” as if any “registered” Truthdig poster is obliged to be honest in his/her registration.

In fact, I was registered but the system malfunctioned so badly, I gave up posting at all for a number of months. I wrote to the “webmaster” and got no reply. I won’t bother registering again.

I’ve nothing to hide, here I am. Write to me personally if you like:;

You can see I’m an artist - I’m not a dedicated pol, not an academic, not affiliated with any organization, am entirely free-lance and self-employed…means ultimately I have no salary, no benefits and all assets at risk; not many willing to sign on for that, how about you?

Well, I don’t mean to get personal and sorry if I somehow offended your sensibilities. My pessimism sometimes does that, especially with those clearly desperate to “believe” that the Republic still functions and offers them politicians in which they can
“believe.” Sorry, my “reality” does not permit my recognizing that it does.

What we have is a plutocracy directed by a global oligarchy. The evidence to support that is not hard to find. The world’s most powerful corporations and the financiers behind them hold no allegiance to any nation, ethnicity or religion. In fact, they direct their agents to use cultural differences to set us at odds with one another. None of this is hard to prove. The Global War Of Terror is GLADIO for the 21st C.

Calling me “disinfo” I think is extreme. I interpret your position in keeping with a commonly heard progressive line: Are you willing to burn your vote on a candidate with no chance in hell and accept that this dreadful Republican candidate may win because of your stubbornness?

Frankly, I don’t think it makes a damn bit of difference. The Corporations own the government. That’s wrong. The only option is for the Government to seize the Corporations. Yes, take them over and force them to function in compliance with the law and serve the citizenry. As of now, the citizenry is in a state of servitude to the corporations. Moreover, when the big ones fail, they do not suffer “market discipline,” they’re “bailed out,” That’s wrong. When they fail, they should be “condemned” and taken over as public assets.

If you or I fail, we loose our property. Should be the same for corporations. Sorry, I’ve no sympathy for this failed republic. I’m ready to leave.

Report this

By cyrena, August 6, 2008 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

By jack, August 6 at 8:19 am
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, et al:  Why waste your time on Rus’ Left/Right red-herring bait?

Of course Pulosi lied - just like they all lie all the time - the Left/Right schism is pure distraction - just as in the coming election, there is no “choice” - even in 2000 there was no “choice” - the rogue network had 9/11 planned long before the election - the POTUS was a target as well - follow Angel is Next - Bush or Gore, same outcome - and they didn’t need Cheney to do 9/11- a bit player at best - it’s all directed from the shadows.
If you have a conscience you vote for Nader of Mckinney - there is no other “choice” -
- McCain promises a 100-year Global War Or Terror - Obama delivers the full-blown Brzezinski Doctrine - both in service to the New World Oligarchy and every new tension over anything in the Middle East, agitates the markets and drives up the price of oil - quarter after quartet of record profits - everyone sees a new energy paradigm on the horizon and the big players in this one are determined to squeeze every penny of profit out of it before it’s over - it’s all lies all the time…Rus is an agent on a mission to distract and waste your time…write him off now.

Well Jack, we figured this out about Russ7355 a really long time ago. However, with all due (and mostly respectful) acknowledgment, you don’t really sound a whole lot different, but more like a competing disinformation agent. I would probably choose your “brand” over that of Rus, since his perfidy and deceit is overwhelmingly offensive to ALL, rather than a few. So yes, he is a waste, but actually more dangerous than a “simple’ waste. He’s a HAZARDOUS waste. And, hazardous waste must be properly disposed of, to prevent any continuing damage.

Now since you are unregistered and post under a fairly common name, we have no idea how you support your own brand. But, this notion of ‘voting one’s conscience’ by voting for an individual who has no chance of winning, doesn’t gain you many points in the reality of the day. It is also very disingenuous for you to claim that there is no real ‘choice’ in our elections, (because of the shady ‘new world order’ conspiracy) and then encourage us all to waste our votes on either Nadar or McKinney, knowing full well that neither one of them has a snowballs’ chance in hell, not only of WINNING, but of even beginning to actually do the job, if they DID.

That’s not to say that their ‘intentions’ aren’t basically good, or that their hearts aren’t in the right places, or even that Nadar could possibly accomplish something in the office, since he has managed to encourage certain measures of reform in the past. But, none of it was ever sustained, and he could never manage it now. As for Cynthia McKinney, while I can certainly appreciate some of her limited efforts as well, she has even LESS than a snowball’s chance of accomplishing anything at all. Hell, if you’re gonna vote for her, you might as well write *my* name it. As far as middle-aged American Women of Color are concerned, I could do a better job than Cynthia. And I say that with all due respect to her.

Besides that, if (as you say) we don’t have any real ‘choice’ anyway, why bother with either one of them? Meantime, I already well know the McSame Doctrine, and I’m not buying that Barack Obama will simply incorporate the Brzezinski doctrine in whole or even part. In fact, he’s already demonstrated that he has his own mind, and can extract the best of all strategies with pragmatism to achieve the best possible outcome based on the realities of the times and circumstances.

So, I’m anti-ideologue, and very pro-sanity. You sound at least like you might be a twig on the branch of Max Shields, and as much an agent of distraction as Rus.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

go to & check out Bill Moyers Journal Capital Crimes for an in depth visual that leaves no doubt as to the cesspool bottom of the ocean slime balls that run this country; then the author mentioned & other people with more power or clout than a 58 year old disabled woman on limited means needs to take charges & file them with the World Court & International Crimes AGAINST the leaders of this country including all the Gov’s in each state; when other countries are talking genocide, Hitler how he did it & how it is being done today in the USA SOMEONE needs to do this pronto; KNOW: that this regime ignores both the World Court & the International Crimes Court: because both Bush & Dick have been indicted for war crimes re torture tactics and when they joke on public tv re “water boarding” know for a fact that there is documented facts showing far worse atrocities than these; in Oregon most of the St Congress is lined up with these folks; & need thouroughly investigated as well; Lou Dobbs by the way is also running for Pres & his book “War on the American Dream”; shows EXACTLY how & what is being done in the USA by our own Gov & Special interest groups, etc, working AGAISNT the people of this country; if you think there MIGHT be a war, you have been in the midst of one without even KNOWING it, some of you; WAKE UP AMERICANS! the Pentagon has been waging psychological & mental & emotional & financial war on it’s own citizens right along with the current regime. It is illegal folks; lets DO SOMETHING to fix our country before it is to late; DEMOCRACY means “the WILL OF THE PEOPLE” not the “will of a few wealthy, & Corp’s etc;” this has NOT been done & carried out since WW1;

Report this

By VietnamVet, August 6, 2008 at 10:24 am Link to this comment

RE: By cann4ing, August 6 at 8:10 am #

You are right! I tried too, but he/she/it just wonders all over the spectrum. I hope others will take our que and disregard whatever IT is.

Report this

By jack, August 6, 2008 at 9:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, et al:  Why waste your time on Rus’ Left/Right red-herring bait?

Of course Pulosi lied - just like they all lie all the time - the Left/Right schism is pure distraction - just as in the coming election, there is no “choice” - even in 2000 there was no “choice” - the rogue network had 9/11 planned long before the election - the POTUS was a target as well - follow Angel is Next - Bush or Gore, same outcome - and they didn’t need Cheney to do 9/11- a bit player at best - it’s all directed from the shadows.

If you have a conscience you vote for Nader of Mckinney - there is no other “choice” - McCain promises a 100-year Global War Or Terror - Obama delivers the full-blown Brzezinski Doctrine - both in service to the New World Oligarchy and every new tension over anything in the Middle East, agitates the markets and drives up the price of oil - quarter after quartet of record profits - everyone sees a new energy paradigm on the horizon and the big players in this one are determined to squeeze every penny of profit out of it before it’s over - it’s all lies all the time.

Rus is an agent on a mission to distract and waste your time…write him off now.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 6, 2008 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

You’re right VietnamVet.  It is pointless to attempt any level of intellectual discourse with a guy with the brains of a turnip.  I thought it possible to point out the gaping holes in his reasoning, but his last post demonstrates that I had engaged in an exercise in futility.

Report this

By VietnamVet, August 6, 2008 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

For Christ’s sake, why don’t you folks stop responding to this nut Rus7355. You can’t win with folks like this and I, for one, am tired of keying on to this issue and seeing nothing but Rus, Rus, Rus. The man ain’t all there, so PLEASE stop responding.

No, Rus, don’t direct anything to me, because you sure as hell won’t get a response!

Report this

By cann4ing, August 6, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Rus.  Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it? 

(1) There are a number of Dems who either lied or were misled into believing that Saddam had WMD.  There was only one man who, in his capacity of commander in chief, ordered our troops to invade knowing full well that Iraq had no WMD, was not a threat to the U.S. and had no links to al Qaeda.  His name is George W. Bush.

As I long ago pointed out in response to another of your idiotic pieces, you remind me of a little boy who gets caught cheating on an exam and says, “well, Billy did it too,” as if that somehow makes cheating any less reprehensible.

(2) Quoting statements made by various Democrats (or Republicans or Independents) made back in 1998 to the effect that the “believed” Iraq possessed WMD is meaningless unless you can also point to the information they were fed that caused them to make the statement.  Unless you can show, as Bugliosi and Suskind have done with respect to Bush/Cheney, that these individuals had been directly told by our intelligence agencies (or UNSCOM or the IAEA) that there were no WMD and that they went on to claim the opposite, you do not present evidence of willful prevarication.  Indeed, the very statements you produce may establish no more than that the individuals you quote are themselves the victims of deception.

(3)  Nancy “the-constitution-is-off-the-table” Pelosi is the last person in the world I would want to defend.  She’s got her head so far up the President’s behind I don’t know where he ends and she begins.  But you have to do more than quote her 1998 claim that Saddam had WMD.  Come up with evidence that she had seen intel demonstrating otherwise, yet went ahead with her claim.  If you can do that, she too should be impeached.

Report this

By SamSnedegar, August 6, 2008 at 2:56 am Link to this comment

The point here ought to be that no one will EVER admit we went there for the oil because to do so would mean we also have to admit to coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing.

The Suskind book would be a far better one if it forced the reader to acknowledge the real reasons for our occupation of Iraq instead of rehashing all the lies, which when all is said and done are only lies and have nothing to do with the truth beyond attempts to cover it up.

Report this

By cyrena, August 6, 2008 at 2:16 am Link to this comment

By Rus7355, August 5 at 3:12 pm

•  “Did Hussein re-constitute this program during the Clinton Administration? That question is in great dispute. But I can show that President Clinton made that very claim numerous times. So too did his Sec. of Defense, his Sec. of State and his National Security Advisor. Not a “Neo-Con” in the lot.”

Rus, I never heard Clinton makes such claims, but I won’t dispute what you say here, just because I haven’t tried to check it out. If he did, (and he may have) such numerous claims should be easy enough to find.

Be that as it may, I think we need to be really careful about who we ‘lable’ as neo-cons, and I think we have to be even more careful about the assertions that only ‘neo-cons’ have been involved in so many Crimes of the State. The fact of the matter is that the biggest culprit of the last decade, (who has honed his skills for decades prior) is Richard B. Cheney. He is NOT a ‘neo-con’ in the accepted sense of the ‘neo-cons’ that most refer to, as represented by the likes of Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and of course I could go on. David Addington, (the chief of staff to Dick Cheney who is basically running the country in terms of all the laws that have shredded the Constitution as we once knew it) is not a neo-con either. Neither is Donald Rumsfeld. All of these people are as responsible for the destruction as are the so-called ‘neo-cons’.

Now I don’t believe that ANYONE has ever suggested that Bill Clinton was ‘innocent’ (because he certainly created his own destruction) and Madeline Albright at least, is as much a hawk as any republican, neo-con or not. (This is what concerns me about her alleged inclusion now, in the Obama advisory team.) Madeline Albright ALSO happens to be (and I only discovered this recently) one of the many sub (and later added) signatories to the PNAC papers. (I was actually shocked to discover that).

So, while many of these people may not fall into the barrel of ‘neo-cons’, that doesn’t mean they don’t share many of the same imperialistic mentalities, and Madeline was certainly among them. In fact, Madeline is the one who felt that the extremely onerous sanctions against Saddam Hussein that killed millions of Iraqi children were ‘worth it’. So I’m hoping you can find a way to drop the labels and the ‘party’ affiliations, and start looking at * individuals*  instead. Insofar as the ‘neo-cons’ are concerned, it might be reasonable to say that they certainly have high-jacked the republican party, but they didn’t get every single one of them, since people like Chuck Hagel continue to exist, and he has long been a republican, and an honest broker politician. For the same reason, we cannot afford to ‘link’ Barack Obama with the DLC of old, represented by the likes of the Clintons and people like Madeline Albright.

That said, I still find it pretty impossible for anyone to believe that Saddam Hussein had ever reconstituted his nuclear program. The Gulf war waged by Bush I, the two wars with Iran spanning 8 years, and the 12 years worth of sanctions should be a clue to anybody that Saddam did not have the ways or means to mess with any nuclear programs, not to mention that the US and the international community were all over him, the entire time. Some of that common sense, combined with the fact that ALL other reliable sources, INCLUING the international community as represented by Hans Blix and the rest of the IAEA made it overwhelmingly clear, PRIOR to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, that Saddam DID NOT have anything close to these WMD or a re-energized program, and Dick Bush knew it.

The invasion and permanent occupation of Iraq was planned long before George Bush took office. If he didn’t have that in his own addled mind long before, you can rest assured that all of his puppet masters did.

It’s all right there in the PNAC documentation.

Report this

By cann4ing, August 5, 2008 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment

Marshall your effort to continue to defend the dissembler-in-chief is exceedingly feeble, at best, though more likely a reflection of intellectual dishonesty on your part.  It is one thing to say that Bush did not believe Saddam when he said that Iraq had no WMD but that has no application here.  Mr. Habbush was indeed Saddam’s Chief of Intelligence, but the CIA had turned him.  He was funneling info to our intelligence agencies about a host of Iraqi secrets but when questioned by British intelligence, Habbush told them, truthfully, that Iraq had no WMD.

Suskind has lengthy tapes of his interviews with the CIA officers.  They said that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq almost from the moment he was sworn in as President; that when George Tenet was informed of this, he said “they’re not going to like this downtown” (meaning the WH); that when Bush was told of Habbash’s revelation there were no WMD, he grew perturbed, stating, “Why don’t they give us something we can use to make our case?”

This account ties in with the massive evidence of deliberate deception documented by Vince Bugliosi in “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder,” which including the Manning memo which exposed a Jan. 2003 WH meeting where Bush, concerned that the inspectors would blow the WMD smokescreen, advocated flying US/UK aircraft over Baghdad painted in UN colors in the hopes that he could provoke the Iraqis in firing on them, providing an excuse for the invasion.  It ties in with Bush’s ordering the inspectors to leave at a time when they had been given full and unfettered access to all sites and Hans Blix had stated that full confirmation that Iraq had disarmed, yet Bush ordered the invasion and then had the temerity to claim he did so “reluctantly.”

Give it up Marshall.  You can’t polish a turd.

Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 10:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TR: for her true motives are purely political.

Could be the case, then again, could be that there’s still some of that weapons-grade anthrax out there; or maybe she got the midnight call…the midnight knock.  Anything is possible with the thugs calling the shot from the shadows. Don’t like he sound of that? Look this one up: “Angle is next.” This will get you started -

Report this

By cann4ing, August 5, 2008 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Nancy “the-constitution-is-off-the-table” Pelosi appeared on Oprah and, remarkably, claimed the reason impeachment was off the table was because she has not seen any evidence of a crime.  Suskind’s book contains a smoking gun equal to the Nixon tapes.  But I doubt it will make any difference to Pelosi, for her true motives are purely political.  She believes Dems will fare better if Bush & Cheney remain in office—the solemn oath that she took to support the constitution and laws of the United States be damned.

Report this

By keepyourheaddown, August 5, 2008 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“you can fool some of the people
  some of the time
but you can’t fool all of the people
all of the time”

lying scumbags…

it’s coming around…

truly pathetic…

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, August 5, 2008 at 4:21 pm Link to this comment

Okay! Another supposedly new revelation that I knew intuitively a long time ago!

For George Tenet to deny that the CIA was ordered to manipulate the information is indeed another outrageous crime added to the record of this evil entity, as if he is telling us that the CIA is a totally independent governmental agency that does not take its orders from the Devil-in-Chief.

We know from many facts of history that the CIA is the most evil instrument of plotting in the service of whoever is the Commanders-in-Chief!

George Tenet is one of the criminal gang who is adding insult to injury by treating us as if we were all sheep, of which none will remember the evil plotting they have done in Cuba and Iran, just to mention two of the most known episodes!

Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: ...not interested in the 9/11 Commission Report…  in that case, try this:  the 9/11 Commission Report, Omissions and Distortions - -

Report this

By Marshall, August 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

So Mr. Suskind - where’s the letter?

Report this

By P. T., August 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

Allowing the U.N. weapons inspectors to finish their job in Iraq would have been a lose-lose situation for Bush.  If weapons were found, they could then be destroyed.  If weapons were not found, there was no problem.  Either way, Bush would lose his reason for war.  So Bush forced the inspectors out by saying he was going to attack before they were finished.

Report this

By Nate in Cali, August 5, 2008 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment

Impeachment. I like that word.

Report this

By webbedouin, August 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

Yes both Clinton & Bush lied agout Iraq’s weapons.  When Saddam lost US support he could not continue with his weapons programs because the US & UK were the suppliers.  He then wiped out his stockpiles in 1992.  This was known here because General Huusein Kamel, chief of Iraq’s weapons procurment process defected in 1995 and revealed Saddam’s secrets to Western intelligence. 

So it has been known since 1995 that Saddam had destroyed what weapons he had.

As for Zarqwari, yes he was in Iraq, Kurdish Iraq, the section of Iraq that was pretty much under US control since 1991.  If he were such a threat, the US could have taken him out any time thereafter.  They did not, but they did exploit his propaganda value to the max.

Report this

By VietnamVet, August 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

RE: Rus7355

In all your posts, you have not provided one iota of EVIDENCE. Look up the definition; your comments do not fit.

No more from me on this, my friend. You cannot argue with someone who THINKS they have the EVIDENCE but refuses to provide it! Please post again when you provide it to an Agency that can evaluate it and validate your “claim”; THEN you will have something to crow about. Until then, take care, and adios.

Report this

By samosamo, August 5, 2008 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

So what the lies??!! Everyone that can cruise the internet could know that. The point is, what is going to be done about it? Most likely, absolutely nothing.
The one person that has done something directly related to the lies of going to war is Vincent Bugliosi. He went so far as to write his just published book about the prosecution of george w. bush for murder and it is about the lies to invade Iraq, which has been reported that this was planned back in the 1990s when the neocons were going to get conservative control of congress and the white house.
The other part about us the people knowing about the lies, well, yeah, those of us who can access the internet know, those that get foreign newspapers know and those that read books know. Who doesn’t know are the poor idiots addicted to the msm for mostly empty entertainment and what information they get that they approve of, rendering them basically clueless.
Do these people need to know, I say YES, but until the conservative monopoly on the msm is broken, they will not know. Break that up and maybe in some round about way something will get done about what this administration has lied about and be held accountable, like in courts of law with real penalties for criminal actions.
Otherwise just stuff all your mysterious reams of papers and evidence where the sun ain’t gonna shine because that is no help to no one.

Report this

By nefertiti, August 5, 2008 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Quote :Actually they are linked - both run by the CIA at different times in their careers - both filling specific roles as long as they’re useful.

BRAVO JACK ! You said it all .

Report this

By nefertiti, August 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment


This is for you

ALL i had to do was Google. took me one minute .plenty more of that where that came from.

Report this

By yellowbird2525, August 5, 2008 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

our country brought over top Nazi’s after WW11 to study them (setting them up handsomely) for 1 purpose only: how they did it; their main concern was how they were able to do it in such a way that the people who were many did not simply overpower the few in power; they actually laughed saying they had done such a good job with propaganda that the people went willingly into the ovens THINKING wrongfully that their country was looking after their best interests; nothing does our country look after the best interests of the people of this nation; we are the WORST nation in the world in many respects; the blurb “china blocks tv coverage” is the same in FDA refusing to allow the TRUTH to be seen, & heard in the media; thru intimidation etc; the people of this country as seen as being enslaved and we are; you think products from China are bad? the ones in your own home make them seen like halos’ all courtesy of our deceitful & deliberately misleading Gov, both parties, & the FDA; the people are wrongfully taxed & wrongfully overbilled on multiple items; Proof; the man says; well, there is a “signed” Colombia trade agreement not signed until this year showing a date of 2006; and a convenient memo dating 2002 saying torture any & all is ok; these are FALSE documents not only from Bush etc but both parties are in on it; Bush Sr tried to get NAU & NAFTA thru; Clinton did it; both reps & dems are corrupt to the core; & the “truth is relavtive” came out when top Clinton person rebuked FBI agent for telling the truth under oath; “truth is relative” he said; TRUTH is it is TIME this corrupt Gov system was put to rest; from Governors on up; no one has abused & harmed it’s citizens more ever than the USA has; they even STATE to other countries “we have gotten away with it in the USA for years now”; when bribing them to go along with their acts in their countries; telling them how they are the “political powerful elites” and no one can prosecute them for any wrong doing at all; they are EXEMPT from the laws; & they have been operating lawlessly for years now; while claiming to be “a nation of laws”;

Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: It’s a myth that the U.S. (the CIA) placed Saddam Hussein in power - no bite…time to call in for your next assignment, Russ.

Report this

By Chris, August 5, 2008 at 1:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rus7355 said:

“How can this be explained? Anyone have an answer?”

What exactly is it that you think needs explaining? That the Clinton administration pursued imperial policies as well as the Bush administration, and lied to support those policies? I doubt you’ll find too many people here who would disagree with that. Admittedly, the left was all too silent about the genocidal sanctions regime against Iraq during the Clinton years (although there were a few like Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis who spoke out), but how is that relevant? Is your argument that we shouldn’t call Bush on his lies because we didn’t call Clinton on his? Sorry, but that’s just a non sequitur.

Report this

By VietnamVet, August 5, 2008 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

By Rus7355, August 5 at 3:24 pm #
Jim C and VietnamVet

Your main problem Rus, is no one nor agency of credence supports your points. Again, if you have EVIDENCE, caugh it up to those that can act on it. You canot win an argument simply by restating unfounded claims!

I have not read anything that indicates President Clinton agreed that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Do you have a source?

I do not have access to the intelligence reports of Saudi, Egyptian, Jordanian and Turkey. How did you get access? Ahhhhh, the Bush administration said so, eh?

No one is asking you to ignore information for a “political purpose.” However, the only sources I have read or heard that claim Al Qaeda was in Iraq or supported by Saddam Hussain were those trying to justify Bush’s claim! That is, in my opinion, far from a credible source. I lean towards those who analyzed the evidence and provided an opinion FREE of political influence. The congress that provided the cited source in my link was controlled by the Republicans, and the Pentagon is hardly a political entity. Finally, Rus, don’t hold your breath while you wait for someone to “ask you for your evidence.”

Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: Two U.S. Presidents, from two political parties, spanning over a decade, making all the same claims but only one of them lied?

Wrong, Russ, they all lie, all the time. Your Left/Right gambit is declined.

The CIA/MI6/MOSSAD NEXUS is and has been running the terror for over 60 years-

No genuinely self-determinant nationalist organization in the Middle East, or anywhere else, benefits from any of this terror, but they’re all infiltrated by provocateur agents in service to the NEXUS - continually pushing for violence and either supplying weapons or setting up patsies.

All these groups are being tracked by anit-terrorist agencies, and all agencies are embedded with moles (in service to the NEXUS) directing investigations in such a way as to keep patsies in play and black-ops alive till they go off - then the media-spin kicks in almost immediately and the psy-op takes over, e.g. 9/11

Reflect on it: the suicide bomber is almost always identified immediately - the parents are almost always shocked: “that’s not the child we raised.” And they’re right; poor kid just sat in the wrong seat on the bus.

Any dedicated (i.e. unowned) main-stream-media journalist who gets too close to this, will probably lose his head, e.g. Daniel Perl

Now, Russ, take your little gambit over to the amateur corner, where you may get a sucker to play with you.

Report this

By Chris, August 5, 2008 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jim C wrote:

“As far as ( I’ll try to be nice Russ ) any link between Sadam and Al qaeda ...”

The closest they ever got to each other was a visit by Zarqawi to a hospital in Baghdad. Maybe Rus7355 has a get-well card from Saddam in his stash of evidence.

Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: any link between Sadam and Al qaeda , thats just silly . Bin laden hated Sadam and visa versa

Actually they are linked - both run by the CIA at different times in their careers - both filling specific roles as long as they’re useful.

Signing up with the CIA is problematic - at some point you know you know too much; e.g. William Colby

About the CIA, 2 things to never forget:

1. “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the state.” - James Jesus Angelton - Director of CIA Counter Intelligence (1954-74)

2. “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” - William Colby - Director of the CIA (1973-76)

Report this

By Jim C, August 5, 2008 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Rus7355 may have a point , perhaps he has copies of the recepts for the stuff we supplied Sadam for use in the Iraq , Iran war , that is well documented . As far as ( I’ll try to be nice Russ ) any link between Sadam and Al qaeda , thats just silly . Bin laden hated Sadam and visa versa , he ran a secular government and went after any sign of religious extremists with an iron fist . He saw them as a threat to his government , that is well documented also . He also allowed women ( and christians by the way ) equality and even had them in his government , another no no for islamists .

Report this

By VietnamVet, August 5, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

RE: By Rus7355

You wrote: “I have reams of evidentiary documentation dating from the early 1990’s through 2001 showing Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorism, including Al Qaeda, and banned weapons programs. I have this evidence for all who request it.”

Well my, my, my, we finally have someone with EVIDENCE that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda; and you are willing to share it! Great, why didn’t you, long ago, provide this to Congress, or the Pentagon, or the myriad of others that would be happy to know that finally, someone has the evidence!

The Pentagon, certainly did not think there was a link:

Nor did congress:

Bottom line, Rus7355, is you appear to be one of those 30% that believes everything that the Bush administration puts out. The evidence has been documented over and over again that the American public was misled on the Iraq debacle, that it was a war of choice, not necessity, and finally, it was about OIL, not security. Australia, one of those that jumped on the band wagon of attack Iraq, finally admitted two years ago that OIL was, in fact, a primary consideration. Its available on the web if you want to read it.

Report this

By knute, August 5, 2008 at 10:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gee Whizzz Rus7335, So your the one who holds the key to it all ? Perhaps you should come forth with all your documented evidence. You apparently are privy to information that eluded the weapons inspectors themselves. So you have evidense of direct links and cooperation with Al Qaeda even. Were you the janitor for Doug Fieth’s office of special projects ? One point you seem to miss, that the weapons inspectors found nothing in the run up to this attack on Iraq, nothing but evidense of a dead program years before we attacked. Bush and the rest of his co-horts simply discounted every bit of intellegence that didn’t follow their game plan. A plan according to numerous sources like R. Clark, O’Neil, Wilkerson, and others working within the admin. at the time that they were set on from day one. It is not news to most of us that we were lied to, what is astounding is that they have never been held to account for the countless lies to the american people, the fraud / waste in conducting this privatized war of theirs. War is a big money maker, and this administration took that mindset to the extream. The waste of billions, the death of over 4000 americans and 1/2 million Iraqi, the displacement of millions more, all for greed and power to satisfy an administration of traitors to everything america once stood for. In the process have taken america to the lowest point in memory as far as our credibilty in the world. Yet , boobs like you continue to support these criminals. They belong behind bars for any one of the numerous crimes they are committing. But lying to us all and the world in order to prosecute a war of their choosing, attacking a country that was not even capable of attacking us if they wanted to, is the basis for war crimes for which the lot of them should be prosecuted for. People who still support this administration, after all that has gone down, should have alot to answer for…you are the problem.

Report this

By Chris, August 5, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rus7355 said:

“I have reams of evidentiary documentation dating from the early 1990’s through 2001 showing Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorism, including Al Qaeda, and banned weapons programs. I have this evidence for all who request it. “

Is that so? And how did you come upon this treasure trove while the CIA and White House were flailing around in the dark trying to come up with such evidence and, failing that, having to fabricate it?

Report this

By P. T., August 5, 2008 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

I suspected Bush feared there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.  That is why he wanted the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq before they could finish their job.  If they finished and found nothing, Bush would have had a harder time selling a war on Iraq.

Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: Saddam Hussein’s links to terrorism, including Al Qaeda

Of course, that was his job, his bit to sow chaos - the long-term mission in the Middle East is to fail all self-determinant states and drive up the price of oil - remember, the CIA put Saddam in power - eventually he became more valuable as a target than an asset.

The ethnic, cultural, religious differences in the Middle East are actually minor, and the people want to live in peace, as they did pretty well side by side for centuries. It’s the global finance oligarchy and their CIA/MI6/MOSSAD intelligence black-op/psy-op nexus that is driving, manipulating, instigating, provoking and executing massive terrorism.

If a terrorist WMD event happens anywhere, don’t look for a dialysis cripple in a cave in the Hindu Kush to have mastermind it from a laptop. Look in the cave beneath the Naval Observatory.

Report this

By Thomas P. Higgins, August 5, 2008 at 9:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another fabrication relevant here is that, during the run-up to the war, U.S. Navy Captain Michael Scott Speicher’s status went from “killed in action,” to “missing in action,” to “missing/captured.”
Speicher, a Navy pilot, was shot down in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm.
When Pres. Bush made a saber-rattling speech at the opening of the 2002 session of the UN General Assembly, he cited Speicher’s case as evidence of Saddam’s failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, although Bush didn’t mention Speicher by name.
In effect, Speicher was resurrected from the dead, so Bush could use his case as part of the casus belli.

Report this

By Dar, August 5, 2008 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! What breaking news!....five years ago.

We’ve known this all along. Even before
the war many were disputing the government’s

Report this

By webbedouin, August 5, 2008 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

Oh & BTW, where did those Niger Yellowcake forgeries come from?

Could it have been Dick CHeney’s office?

Report this

By webbedouin, August 5, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

And now you tell me Iran is building nooklier weapons…

Report this

By Jim C, August 5, 2008 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Well , add one more , everyone has made valid points . The buck has to stop with the american people , that is undeniable .

Report this

By felicity, August 5, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

I’m shocked!!!  We were lied to?  Probably the first time in history that a people has been lied to by its leaders.  Probably the first time in history that a country’s leaders have acted to serve their own interests rather than those of the country or its people.

Lying heads of state are a given.  The question is why do the majority of Americans consistently and faithfully always believe they’re telling the truth.

At this point, if election polls are to be believed, lying to the American people is still a viable way of getting one’s Republican ass in the White House. I used to think that diabolical, power-hungry leaders brought down a country.  I don’t think so anymore.  It’s a lazy, self-absorbed uninformed populace that is the ultimate ruination of a nation.

Report this

By Jim C, August 5, 2008 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

Sadly , all of the above posts are correct . We have become so accustomed to lying at the highest level it seems normal .By all rights Mccains claim to any kind of judgement should be in shreds as should be his campaign , but he is still viable . The administration new well that the WMD charge was bogus but figured they would find something to justify the charge . They also miscalculated by assuming it would be a swift easy victory and the public wouldn’t care that we invaded on a false premise . That we would be so busy cheering our victory and beating our collective chest all would be over looked . Sometimes it almost seems that Germanys invasions of the Rhineland and Poland were the model , right down to the swaggering premature victory speech . We have also sunk to the point that crimes and actions that would have created outrage and calls for special prosecuters pre bush are now ignored completely . To put it together , this country has reached a sad and frankly unsustainable condition for a democracy to survive .

Report this

By samosamo, August 5, 2008 at 7:04 am Link to this comment

Well, I guess this is more conformation of what is generally known but with some more detail. I would think even a long time ago witch pelosi would have put impeachment back on the table and gone after all of those liars. But I guess she considers a blowjob more destructive to this country. There is just too much hard evidence not to impeach these clowns.
I saw a clip of her on the ‘daily show’ and she comes across as bright and articulate as you would expect of a politician but that is what she is a politician. And being such she is able to hid any hidden agendas such as going after w and all after there is a transfer of power or because of some skeletons in her closet she does want released, she’ll do anything to keep them locked up. It just doesn’t make good patriotic sense and she does not instill in me the idea that she is patriotic to anything except her own selfishness.
Bugliosi, the ex-DA, does point out in his book about prosecuting w for murder, well, that can be done after a tranfer of power, if that happens.

Report this

By Greg Bacon, August 5, 2008 at 6:33 am Link to this comment

If this book gets any traction in the press, look for the criminals in the Bush/Cheney Junta to upstage the book by initiating some type of false-flag attack against either an American city or US troops or sailors in the ME.

Nothing like showing pics of a recently bombed out US city to distract the huddled masses.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, August 5, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

And of course there will be more lies, to answer for the lies. In and endless circle of deception, of lies backing up still more lies.

What do we expect from Liar’s… I suppose, from their point of view, it’s all worth it, even the 22,000 phone calls to suicide prevention hotlines by Iraqi veteran’s.

This is what happens when reality becomes a fabrication, of the demented greed of the Neo Con’s.
They have elevated the principle of , “Don’t get Caught”, above all of their other supposed moral values.

I suppose it is easier for Liars, who pose as saviors, to succeed in their lies, than it is for Liars who just plain lie.

Report this

By hippy pam, August 5, 2008 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

I have been watching ads on the boobtube asking if nobama is READY TO LEAD[mccain ads].....WHERE WAS EVERYONE WHEN THE QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED-IS “BULLSH*T” READY/FIT TO LEAD???when will this bunch of CRIMINALS be HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES/ACTS?

Report this

By Jim Yell, August 5, 2008 at 5:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is disingenious to claim we didn’t know. Anyone who didn’t know the administration was lying was willfully ignoring the facts. Just because everyone who knew was shouted down by the lying Republican scum, doesn’t mean we didn’t know.

Report this

By Marc Schlee, August 5, 2008 at 3:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Strike until the federal government ratifies the International Criminal Court accord.

Turn the Bush administration over to The Hague to be prosecuted for war crimes.



Report this

By jack, August 5, 2008 at 12:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE: Drowned out by the deafening mantra, “The surge was a success!” and the regularly scheduled Two Minutes Hate rants about Iran

If you’re running the terror, e.g. à la Frank Kitson’s “Low Intensity Warfare,” i.e. running psuedo-gangs and the like to discredit legitimate nationalist movements, then you can turn the terror on and off any time you like.

You want an excuse to build up forces, turn it on; you want a display of success, turn it off. This whole operation is so transparent, the incredible aspect is that they’ve gotten away with it for so long. Embedded journalists must be so scared they view their protectors as their only salvation and are blind to the provocations driving the chaos.

As for the Launch-on-Iran mantra, think that one through: every new incident of saber-rattling serves to drive up the price of oil, and Iran benefits too. Supply isn’t really down, only the perception of supply. The manipulation is so staggeringly deep, you got to get way outside the box to see it.

Report this

By Marshall, August 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

“The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”

Hell, we had that information from Saddam himself - along with all of his top officials.  That didn’t mean we should have believed it!  Sure, in retrospect they were more or less telling the truth about the WMD, but we didn’t KNOW that at the time.

Report this

By Chris, August 4, 2008 at 10:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The situation has become such an Orwellian nightmare that this book won’t matter. Drowned out by the deafening mantra, “The surge was a success!” and the regularly scheduled Two Minutes Hate rants about Iran, it’ll all go right down the memory hole like everything else that’s been revealed about this regime over the past 4+ years.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.