Definitive PROOF emerges that Hillary knowingly lied about Saddam's WMDs to Senate, public

[EdwardBernays]

Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 06:37 AM - Edit history (3)

" The justification for going to war in Iraq thirteen years ago, was based on a 93-page classified document that allegedly contained “specific information” on former Iraqi leader President Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs he was apparently running.

Now that document has been declassified and it reveals that there was virtually zero justification for the Iraq war. The document reveals that there was “no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda” and no WMD programs.

The report reveals that the intelligence community and the US Department of Energy did not think Saddam was pursuing any type of WMD program, and was instead developing rocket motors...."

http://yournewswire.com/declassified-cia-document-reveals-iraq-war-had-zero-justification/

Here's what Hillary said before her vote:

That CERTAINLY contradicts what the NIE says, which was the definitive opinion of the US intelligence services.

So the obvious question is, did Hillary read the NIE before she publicly endorsed and voted for the Iraq war? Turns out, the answer is a resounding yes!:

"But if Clinton’s claim that “I had acted in good faith” passes muster, her assertion that she “made the best decision I could with the information I had” does not. Prior to Clinton’s October 10, 2002 speech from the Senate floor explaining her Iraq vote, the Bush administration sent over two documents to the Senate for review. The first was a 92-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second was a five-page, unclassified version."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/whats-missing-from-hillary-clintons-iraq-war-apology/372427/

So the question Hillary MUST answer is: why did you deliberately and knowingly lie about Saddam's weapons capabilities to the American public and as your official justification for voting for the Iraq War is definitively shown to be untrue, why exactly did you vote for the Iraq War resolution?

And Bernie needs to make an ad connecting these dots and asking these question yesterday, because you know who will if he doesn't? Donald Trump.

And he's going to be able to DEFINITIVELY PROVE that Hillary has been lying since day one about her justifications for the Iraq War.

Note; I just cross posted this on GDP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511759496

[BernieforPres2016]

1. The people who still support Hillary have ignored countless reasons to reject her

She doesn't have to answer any questions about anything as far as they're concerned. They're never going to hold her accountable for anything.

[SamKnause]

2. I concur.

[EdwardBernays]

16. Well

Look at the huge number of undecided voters in NY. They need to hear this message. If at all possible.

Hillary lied and US troops died.

[SamKnause]

19. Did you respond to the correct post ???

I agreed with the poster.

[EdwardBernays]

20. I am the poster

My point is that it's not about convincing Clintonites, but undecided voters in NY.

Sorry for any confusion.

[SamKnause]

21. Not a problem.

Have a safe and wonderful weekend.

[EdwardBernays]

22. You too!

[tularetom]

3. She's either extremely gullible or totally intimidated by the pentagon brass and RW republicans

Either way we don't need her anywhere near the red phone.

She's way too easily manipulated.

[BernieforPres2016]

5. She's a war monger

She wants to prove she can be as tough as any chicken hawk man like GWB or Cheney. Nobody intimidates her.

[tk2kewl]

8. she was on board with Bush/Cheney 100%

[Nyan]

6. She thinks Henry Kissenger is a good policy advisor.

She's neo-con to the core. Don't fool yourself.
Actually, it's not just her -a lot of establishment dems are that way. Look at Chuck Schumer. He even opposed the Iran deal.

[EdwardBernays]

12. That should

Scare any progressive.

[EdwardBernays]

13. It's generous

To say that she's being manipulated IMO.

[Scootaloo]

27. You're very generous, but the answer is neither of those.

[senz]

31. I agree with Scootaloo. She knew exactly what she was doing.

It was a deliberate, calculated lie.

She is 100% on board with Neocons and corporatists. 100%. She is NOT a regular, normal Democrat. She may be out there pretending to be one of us, but it is an act.

[kracer20]

4. Smiles while lying?

"This is the hardest decision I've ever had to make", but can't hold back a grin.

Probably thinking in her head that she is proud of herself.

[EdwardBernays]

11. Yeah

That's really sickening behavior. :/

[restorefreedom]

7. lets remember this is the same person

who pushed a reluctant obama to get involved with libya and spoke with glee about the torture and assassination of another country's sovereign leader WHO WAS COOPERATING. and now isis is there.

war profiteering neocon all the way.

[EdwardBernays]

10. The question

Becomes WHY did she lie to the Senate and public?

Someone REALLY needs go ask her that question in front of a camera and soon!

[restorefreedom]

15. she will dance and claim she didnt lie

but we know why

lying is who she is
she is a war monger
she is a neocon profiteer


and part of me has to wonder if was warming up for foundation activities

[EdwardBernays]

17. She still

Needs to answer that question publicly. That's my point.

[restorefreedom]

24. i would love to see that. nt

[EdwardBernays]

9. Thread title changed

To more accurately reflect the crucial point of the OP.

[BigBearJohn]

14. This needs to go viral.

[EdwardBernays]

18. 100%

I can't believe that this seems to be the first diary with all three bits of info next to each other.

Someone needs to make a video and post it on FB and twitter today.

[Duppers]

37. Heck Yes it does.

+100.

[EdwardBernays]

42. I just

Posted it in GD-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511759496

If you like to go over there and comment that'd be great!

[cantbeserious]

23. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[EdwardBernays]

25. My pleasure

Please share it on Social media!

[northernsouthern]

26. Not sure if it matters.

The people that voted for her last time did not care, including my parents that kept me from joining the navy years back because of these conflicts. I thought we should serve if we are doing this crap, but seems many of them could care less about it. Watch your friend stream tears from his eyes every time he has a flash back and then try to be ok with it. That may be the best anti war ad, just soldier after soldier telling us what they saw with sheltered emotion. He saw every f@cking member of his team die in front of his eyes in a transport, he is racked with guilt for living, he is on meds to remove emotional pain (it think ti blocks emotional association with memories, so the more you talk about them the less it hurts). He talks about peace and why would we have done what we did.

[EdwardBernays]

28. I don't know if you know

why Nixon killed the draft?

"Nixon thought ending the draft could be an effective political weapon against the burgeoning anti-war movement. He believed middle-class youths would lose interest in protesting the war once it became clear that they would not have to fight, and possibly die, in Vietnam."

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/01/us-military-draft-ends-jan-27-1973-072085

Over decades of an all "volunteer" army the majority of Americans - even anti-war Americans- don't REALLY care about the troops... maybe more than politicians, but really it's more of a concept than an actual emotion.

And BECAUSE almost no one has any skin the game, this shit just repeats endlessly.

The US has one of the worst foreign policies in the history of the world... and that's not hyperbole... if anything we're better now than we've been in a while, because of all the scrutiny, which used to not exist.

But US foreign policy is responsible for MILLIONS of dead civilians on multiple continents... and we don't care about that either...

[northernsouthern]

30. Makes sense.

I don't think I had heard it put in that way before. I think I just heard it was because of the public outcry...but then again that would link directly to what you are saying. That is messed up. It is so annoying to see people talk about war so simplistically, like they are playing a board game.

[HereSince1628]

29. I suspect no one but the people who wrote it actually read the whole thing

Once Cheney told them what was in it they all knew exactly what was in it.

[EdwardBernays]

32. lol and

sigh

sadly that's probably all tooo true

[senz]

33. Edward, I read all of Bush's war justification speeches

for a grad school project, and though I was analyzing his rhetorical devices (arcane linguistic stuff), my research took me through some of the realities of Iraq and America at the time.

The WMD rationale for the war was entirely contrived from old information dating back to the era preceding the US/UN sanctions against Iraq (early 1990s). Saddam had been fully neutralized; he was no threat to anyone and had no way to manufacture any new conventional, chemical, or nuclear weapons. The U.S. knew this. The emotional appeal was to America's fresh trauma over 9/11 (a very convenient occurrence). Bush cited 9/11 repeatedly throughout his pre-war speeches, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. The "logical" connection he was trying to make was this: Saddam Hussein was manufacturing new WMD which he would then give to terrorists to launch a new, much more destructive terrorist attack on the United States. The nuclear threat was given particular emphasis in all of Bush's speeches.

However, Saddam had no al Qaeda connections. It was widely known that Saddam despised al Qaeda. Dictators do not tolerate terrorist groups because dictators require absolute control. There was no al Qaeda infiltration into Iraq -- the only time an al Qaeda operative was ever known to be in Iraq was when Saddam allowed one to be treated at an Iraqi hospital. The only kinds of terrorists that Saddam sanctioned were the little ones outside the country who launched homegrown marketplace explosions in Israel. They were not aligned with al Qaeda and the U.S. was never one of their targets.

So Bush was faking the rationale. I presume everyone remembers the phony "yellow cake uranium" scare that Joe Wilson debunked, resulting in the Bush administration's revenge outing of his CIA operative wife, Valerie Plame.

Also: the U.S. launched their shock and awe attack before the UN weapons inspectors had finished their inspections. AND: Saddam Hussein offered to surrender (regime change) just prior to the invasion. That I saw at a couple of news sites, one from the UK. Think about that and what it means for Bush's war rationale.

Hillary Clinton, with connections way beyond even her new role as senator (her spouse had been POTUS only two years previously), would of course have known all of this.

Her action in furthering the rationale for the invasion cooperated perfectly with the goals of PNAC, an elite group of neocons (remember the "con" is for conservative) with long established D.C. roots who were heavily represented in the Bush administration. PNAC's stated concern was U.S. global hegemony (military bases all over the globe) but the reason for the hegemony was economic control of the world.

That is who Hillary is and whom she serves. Everything else is just electioneering.

[EdwardBernays]

34. 100%

Good post!

And it underscores why having documentary evidence that she lied is so important!

[Duppers]

35. EXCELLENT post.

Thank you, senz.

Those of us who were news/political junkies knew much of this. Watching facts being ignored, lives ended, lives ruined, a country plundered and ruined, and trillions wasted sickened us. Most others ignored us and condemned our anger. Good authoritarians they were and are.

I can imagine some future documentary covering your points above, perhaps some 20-something years from now. Just like Hillary's supporters and all republicans now, will anyone care?

[glinda]

36. Kick

[Duppers]

38. Wow, what an OP! Thank you!

More eyes in GD-P. Hint.

This, as BigBearJohn posted above, this needs to go viral. I'm sending out a link to your OP.

How could Hillary's campaign survive this info IF MSM covered it!

Hats off to you.

[EdwardBernays]

40. In gd-p

I'd probably be banned for posting it.

And thanks

[paulthompson]

39. Interesting how no Clinton supporters post here

You notice how when info in a thread makes Clinton look bad, Clinton supporters pretend like that thread doesn't exist? It's happening with this thread and it happened a couple of days ago with this thread too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511710293

Meanwhile, we see a thousand posts about the Pope visit. Curious.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot this was in the Sanders forum. It should be in the Primaries forum.

[EdwardBernays]

41. Fuck it

I posted it in GD-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511759496

NIce knowing all of you.

If you like to go over there and comment that'd be great!

[cui bono]

43. Well she is the candidate who has received more money from the oil industry than ANY OTHER candidate

including the GOP.

That might have something to do with it.

.