For anyone needing to "catch up" on the Iraq bullshit... (very long)

[LynnTheDem]

Background

The Lies

Iraq DID NOT invade Iran "unprovoked".

Iran publicly announced their intentions of overthrowing Saddam's regime for months before the start of the Iran-Iraq war.

Iran bombed an Iraqi university, killing and wounding many students; Iran carried out some 25 assassination attempts (some successful) on various of Saddam's government members.

Iran gave the Kurds money & equipment to use to overthrow Saddam's regime. Iran then bombed several of Iraq's border towns, killing hundreds of civilians. The US Pentagon's own report talks about the many attempts Saddam made for a diplomatic solution with Iran; each of which Iran refused. Saddam was secular, Iran wanted Iraq to be fundamental Islamist.

http://www.ndu.edu/library/n2/n015602O.pdf

The Iranian bombing of the Iraqi border towns was the actual start of the war, although the USA calls the start the day Iraq attacked Iran back.

1980 4 September - Iran shells Iraqi border towns (Iraq considers this as the start of the Iran/Iraq war).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm

If Canada publily announced intentions to overthrow the Bush regime, tried to assassinate members of Bush & the Bush regime, and bombed US border towns, you can be sure the USA would attack Canada and equally sure America would NOT be calling their attack "unprovoked".

The USA supported Iraq during the 8 years of the war, with money, sattelite photos of enemy positions, and equipment INCLUDING chemical and bio weapons, technical expertise, and plans for chemical weapons factories.

-The US rewarded Saddam after the Iran-Iraq war with billions in loan guarantees and agricultural credits right up until Aug 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.

In the fall of 1989, at a time when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was only nine months away and Saddam Hussein was desperate for money to buy arms, President Bush signed a top-secret National Security Decision directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for $1 billion in new aid.

* In 1987, Vice President Bush successfully pressed the federal Export-Import Bank to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Iraq, the documents show, despite staff objections that the loans were not likely to be repaid as required by law.

* After Bush became President in 1989, documents show that senior officials in his Administration lobbied the bank and the Agriculture Department to finance billions in new Iraqi projects.

* As vice president in 1987, Bush met personally with Nizar Hamdoon, Iraq's ambassador to the United States, to assure him that Iraq could buy more dual-use technology. It was three years later that National Security Council officials blocked the attempt by the Commerce Department and other agencies to restrict such exports.

* After Bush signed NSD 26 in October, 1989, Secretary of State James A. Baker III personally intervened with Agriculture Secretary Clayton K. Yeutter to drop Agriculture's opposition to the $1 billion in food credits. Yeutter, now a senior White House official, agreed and the first half of the $1 billion was made available to Iraq at the beginning of 1990.

* As late as July, 1990, one month before Iraqi troops stormed into Kuwait city, officials at the National Security Council and the State Department were pushing to deliver the second installment of the $1 billion in loan guarantees, despite the looming crisis in the region and evidence that Iraq had used the aid illegally to help finance a secret arms procurement network to obtain technology for its nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program.

An Agriculture Department official cautioned in a February, 1990, internal memo that, when all the facts were known about loan guarantees to Iraq, the program could be viewed as another "HUD or savings-and-loan scandal."

Of the $5 billion in economic aid provided to Iraq over an eight-year period, American taxpayers have now been stuck for $2 billion in defaulted loans.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00776.html

Then there's the "he gassed his own people" rhetoric.

The Kurds were not and never have been Saddam's "own people". Kurds fought with Iran against Iraq...and America supported Iraq.

"Talking points for the meeting include the Iran-Iraq war -the U.S. "would regard any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West"

US declassified document, page 2-1A

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq29.pdf

-It was during a war; the US term is "collateral damage".

The UK "gassed the Kurds" during their own previous occupation of Iraq, 1917-1952, something Winston Churchill said was a good thing to do;

"I do not understand squeamishness about the use of gas," Churchill wrote. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

British Use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq

http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm

-The US supplied much of Iraq's chemical agents and technical expertise in how to weaponize, (just like the current Bush admin is offering to sell to India), as well as sattelite photos showing enemy positions

Yes, U.S. helped Iraq get chemical, biological weapons

You don't have to dig deep to find that from 1982 to 1990 the United States supplied Iraq with not only conventional arms and cash but also chemical and biological materials, including the precursors for anthrax and botulism.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Bank Committee found that U.S. companies had been licensed by the Commerce Department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including precursors of anthrax and botulism. The report also noted the exports included plans for chemical and biolgical warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment.

"Only on Aug. 2, 1990, did the Agriculture Department officially suspend the (loan) guarantees to Iraq -- the same day that Hussein's tanks and troops swept into Kuwait," a Los Angeles Times expose on Feb. 23, 1992, noted.

http://www.belleville.com/mld/newsdemocrat/5674107.htm

Both Iraq AND Iran were using chemical weapons, and it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, according to several US government and US Military reports, all of which are still on US gov websites. Some people believe these reports were just lies used by the US government to blame Iran and cover up for Iraq. However, it's hypocritical at the very least to use the "he gassed his own people" rhetoric as an excuse 20 years later to invade & occupy a nation, when all these reports are still currently available and no government reports exist contradicting them.

The US State Department found both sides were using chemical weapons.

"There are indications that Iran may also have used chemical artillery shells in this fighting," spokesman Charles Redman told the press a week after the attack. "We call on Iran and Iraq to desist immediately from the use of any chemical weapons."

On May 3, 1990, referring to yet another study, "A Defense Department reconstruction of the final stages of the Iran-Iraq war has assembled what analysts say is conclusive intelligence that one of the worst civilian massacres of the war, in the Iraqi Kurdish city of Halabja, was caused by "repeated chemical bombardments from both belligerent armies." "
Washington Post (May 3, 1990)
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0218,trilling,34389,1.html

The US government itself later confirmed the fact that both sides had used gas and that, in all likelihood, Iranian gas killed the Kurds.

A Pentagon report, ‘Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East’ published in 1990 states (Chapter 5): “In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing a great many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation, and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.”
-United Nations: No Proof Saddam Gassed the Kurds
http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/11-18-98.html

The Pentagon's USAWC and US Marine Corps report concluded Iran gassed the Kurds at Halbjah, not Iraq.

Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War
by Dr. Stephen Pelletiere and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Johnson
U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute

"The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other
observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."

US Marine Corps document FMFRP 3

"Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war—the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents—and the Iranians do—we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack."
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

The DIA's report concluded Iran had gassed the Kurds & Iranians of Halabjah;

Immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas -which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

http://truthout.org/docs_02/020303C.htm

The CIA's report mentions "hundreds" killed, not "5000" and against the Iranians primarily w Kurds caught in the cross-fire. This report is still on the US government CIA website.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Halabaja, the town where it took place, was at the time occupied by invading Iranian forces, and, according to MSNBC Internet Home News, hundreds of Iranians and civilians were killed, not thousands.

Then came the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and more lies from the USA;

Remember, the USA was still paying money to Iraq right up until Aug 2, 1990, the day Iraq invaded. Iraq had made their intentions of invasion well-known in public in the UN. Kuwait was slant-drilling and pumping more oil than they were supposed to be and as well there was a long-standing border dispute between the two nations. This was no "surprise" invasion.

On 24 July 1990 two Iraqi armoured divisions moved from their bases to take up positions on the Kuwaiti border. Later the same day the US State Department spokeswoman, Margaret Tutwiler, asked whether the US had any military plans to defend Kuwait, replied: ‘We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’

On July 25th, US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, met with Saddam Hussein to discuss the coming invasion;

Glaspie: "But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

"The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."

On July 31, two days before the invasion, Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly testified before Chairman Lee Hamilton of House Foreign Affairs. Asked repeatedly if we would come to the defense of Kuwait if it were attacked, he insisted there was no obligation on our part to do so.

Meanwhile, Iraq prepared for a meeting the following day with Kuwait to negotiate a deal on the oil issues. The talks ended badly, with the Kuwaiti emir refusing to attend.

http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/02-19-98.html

How did the USA get involved, attacking Iraq for invading Kuwait, after all the government's public assertions that "Arab to Arab conflicts are not our concern"? More lies, that's how.

Colin Powell said he had "top secret satellite photos" showing thousands of Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border, showing that Iraq intended to invade into Saudi. That was a total lie. Satellite photos taken at the exact same time in the exact same place showed...nothing. Miles and miles of empty sand. It never happened.

General Colin Powell; : "I think we could go to war if they invaded Saudi Arabia. I doubt if we would go to war over Kuwait."

The above was admitted to the following year by Powell...but it was far too late by then; an estimated 200,000-400,000 Iraqi (and other nations) men, women and children were dead and hundreds of thousands more were wounded.

Another lie, one which galvanized the American public's support for the 1991 Gulf War, was the horrendous story of Iraqis in Kuwaiti hospitals dumping babies out of incubators and leaving them to die on the floor. This was totally untrue, made up by the PR firm Bush41 had hired (the same PR firm Bush43 now uses). President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches and seven senators referred to them in speeches backing a pro-war resolution.

Later, Amnesty International, who had also been duped by the testimony, admitted it had got it wrong.

It never happened.

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/nocasusbelli.html

The USA committed some horrendous atrocities on the Iraqis during the 1991 Gulf War. We hear all about those "mass graves", but what Bush isn't saying is how many America put into those graves.

Iraq's infra-structure, crops, livestock, hospitals, water supply, electrical grid, all were targets of US bombings, an effort to "demoralize civilians of Iraq and accelerate the sanctions" that were to come, admitted the Pentagon.

Many observers commented that the 1991 Gulf conflict was not a 'war' in the conventional sense: throughout its most decisive phase -- from the beginning of the air strikes on 16 January to the onset of the Coalition ground offensive on 24 February -- allied aircraft ranged over the whole of Iraq, bombing at will (by the end of February well over 100,000 air sorties had been flown).

As early as September of 1990, Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Dugan told reporters that, as far as targets went, the "cutting edge would be downtown Baghdad."

The Washington Post reported that the list of targets Dugan proposed included Iraqi power grids, roads, railroads, and "perhaps" domestic petroleum production facilities.

Within days of that statement, Dugan was fired.

In late January 1991, after two weeks of bombing, the London Times observed that allied attacks were closely following Dugan’s description, "with the liberation of Kuwait as only part of the overall plan."

At 2:30 a.m. on 17 January 1991 the bombs began to fall, and for forty-two days U.S. aircraft attacked Iraq on an average of once every thirty seconds.

There were two thousand air strikes in the first twenty-four hours. More than 90 percent of Iraq’s electrical capacity was bombed out of service in the first few hours. Within several days, "not an electron was flowing." Multimillion-dollar missiles targeted power plants up to the last days of the war, to leave the country without power as economic sanctions sapped life from the survivors. In less than three weeks the U.S. press reported military calculations that the tonnage of high-explosive bombs already released had exceeded the combined allied air offense of World War II.

By the end of the aerial assault, 110,000 aircraft sorties had dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq, the equivalent of seven and a half atomic bombs of the size that incinerated Hiroshima.

http://www.iacenter.org/fireice.htm

Thousands of Iraqi troops were buried alive in their trenches, with US troops bulldozing over top of them;

"Many Iraqi soldiers were killed by the simple expedient of burying them alive: in one report, American earthmovers and ploughs mounted on tanks were used to attack more than 70 miles of trenches. Colonel Anthony Moreno commented that for all he knew, 'we could have killed thousands'.

One US commander, Colonel Lon Maggart, estimated that his forces alone had buried about 650 Iraqi soldiers.

"What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with peoples arms and things sticking out of them,' observed Moreno.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=45

The US Pentagon defended this atrocity, saying there was a "gap" in international law that allowed for burying the troops alive.

http://jeff.paterson.net/aw/aw4_buried_alive.htm

Then there was the Basra massacre, aka The Highway of Death. On March 2, 1991, Iraq announced over public radio that it was withdrawing from Kuwait. The surrendering soldiers, as well as families of Iraq and other nations seeking to escape the US ariel bombings, went down the Basra road to Southern Iraq.

Above them, the U.S. bombed both ends of the highway, ensuring that there would be no escape from what was to follow. Along the seven-mile stretch, the U.S. then killed thousands. On some planes, the PA system bleated out Rossini’s William Tell Overture (the Lone Ranger theme).

WARNING: SHOCKING PHOTOS

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html

The Highway of Death

“Even in Vietnam I didn’t see anything like this. It’s pathetic.“ — Major Bob Nugent, Army intelligence officer.

WARNING: SHOCKING PHOTOS

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/iraqgenocide/HighwayofDeath.html

On the Highway of Death

"It was like going down an American highway—people were all mixed up in cars in trucks. People got out of their cars and ran away. We shot them.... The Iraqis were getting massacred."
—Pfc. Charles Sheehan-Miles

"We've blown away a busload of kids."
—Unidentified platoon sergeant during March 2 assault.

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?7

"We're yelling on the radio, 'They're firing at the prisoners! They're firing at the prisoners!'
—Specialist 4 Edward Walker, describing February 27, 1991, incident during ground invasion of Iraq.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/069.html

The UK Parliament commented on the Basra road massacre:

UK Parliament
House of Commons
column 1347

Hon. Members will know that I am not emotional about many subjects. But I suggest that, emotionally, we shall be haunted for a long time to come by what has happened in the last few weeks. We shall be haunted in particular by what occurred on the Basra road. That was done in the name of the American Congress and the British House of Commons.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199091/cmhansrd/1991-03-15/Debate-2.html

There's still other bodies in those mass graves; most of us are aware of Bush41's urging the Kurds and Shiites to uprsie and overthrow Saddam's regime after the Gulf war. Why do people take this to mean the innocent lamb Kurds & Shiites simply marched in the streets waving little "Saddam is Nasty" banners?

The rebels slaughtered thousands of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds; some by execution, by slitting throats, by hanging, by shooting...all were dumped into those mass graves.

"It was a revolution," says one Basrawi rebel named Mohamad, who deserted his army unit after the intifada began and eventually made it to the United States. "It was glorious. There were demonstrations and shooting. There were bodies all over the place."
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/WR92/MEW1-02.htm

But there were more bodies to come. U.S. officials quickly voiced concerns about Iran's support of the Shiite rebels.

"I'm not sure whose side you'd want to be on," then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said as the uprisings began. But in trying to drum up American public support for the current invasion, Cheney suddenly was very decisive on whose side one should be...12 years later.

Colin Powell, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the Shiites, as well as the Kurds in the north, "never had a chance of succeeding, and their success was not a goal for the administration."

"Our practical intention was to leave Baghdad enough power to survive as a threat to an Iran that remained bitterly hostile toward the United States," Powell said in his book, "My American Journey."

So orders were given to the US troops to slow down the retreating rebels, and free passage was given to Saddam's Republican Guards chasing the rebels. The executions of the rebels happened SO CLOSE to the US troops, many were traumatized because they could actually see the executions taking place.

Mass Graves Revive Memories of U.S. 'Betrayal'
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=792

Uprising in Iraq may be slow because of U.S. inaction in 1991.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/115991_waranal05.shtml

Analysts like the University of Haifa's Baram estimate the number of civilian dead in the Shi'ite intifada at between 30,000 and 60,000. Marlin Fitzwater, the White House spokesman at the time, said the administration felt no guilt for refusing to aid the rebels.

Gen. COLIN POWELL: "The only issue that came up is, "Should we do something about the Iraqi helicopters?" It had never been one of our objectives to get involved in this kind of civil uprising between factions within Iraq and the Iraqi government. And so it was not clear what purpose would have been achieved by getting ourselves mixed up in the middle of that.

The American pilots patrolling the skies above Iraq could see the Kurds being chased into the mountains, but they had strict orders not to intervene.

Capt. MERRICK KRAUSE, F-15 Pilot: We saw helicopters chasing a lot of people down a road and we saw the gunships shooting at them. You could see the smoke coming out of the gunship and occasionally see flashes of the tracers, even though the sun had just started coming up.

Capt. MERRICK KRAUSE: We felt frustrated in the fact that we couldn't help the uprising that was going on on the ground, for whatever political reasons that were above our rank. And the best we could do was report what we saw and eventually hope that it was taken care of.

Pres. GEORGE BUSH: I do not want to push American forces beyond our mandate. We've done the heavy lifting. Our kids performed with superior courage and they don't need to be thrust into a war that's been going on for years.

They sure didn't care about the "poor Iraqis" back then; funny how suddenly over a decade later this becomes their "justification" for war.

There were no ties to Iraq and the 911 attacks.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
-Rumsfeld, Monday, October 4, 2004
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,10975887-1702,00.html

Sky News (London): "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?"

Bush: "I can't make that claim.'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

Sept 17, 2003- Bush: No evidence Saddam Hussein involved in Nine-Eleven attacks
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447698

Sept 16, 2003- Rice: U.S. Never Said Saddam Was Behind 9/11
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/983821/posts

Sept 16, 2003- Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

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

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Allies Find No Links Between Iraq, Al Qaeda

"What I'm asked is if I've seen any evidence of that. (Iraq links to al Qaeda) And the answer is: I haven't.” -British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who supports U.S. invasion & occupation of Iraq.]
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-noqaeda4nov04,0,4538810.story

British Intelligence agencies, MI6 and MI5

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

Richard Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who lead an internal review of the CIA's prewar intelligence;

“the CIA has not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=800

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

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

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

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

Iraq-al Qaeda links weak, say former Bush officials

Three former Bush administration officials who worked on intelligence and national security issues have told National Journal that the prewar evidence tying al Qaeda to Iraq was tenuous, exaggerated, and often at odds with the conclusions of key intelligence agencies.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm

Split at C.I.A. and F.B.I. On Iraqi Ties to Al Qaeda

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and…

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

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October 2002.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A14056-2002Oct24

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

Iraq-al Qaeda ties have not been found

Bush administration hyped sketchy and false evidence to push for war
The Bush administration’s claim that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda — one of the administration’s central arguments for a pre-emptive war — appears to have been based on even less solid intelligence than the administration’s claims that Iraq had hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

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

Iraq and al Qaeda: What Evidence?
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23816

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

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

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

Israeli intelligence (the Moussad)

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

bush's second and final hand-picked Republican weapons hunter ISG, Dr. Charles Dueffler;

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, no capability since 1991, no evidence of ties to al Qaeda, no serious threat;
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/06/1096949583023.html?from=storylhs

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/

OFFICIAL VERDICT: WHITE HOUSE MISLED WORLD OVER SADDAM-AL QAEDA TIES
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0617-03.htm

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

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

NO ties between Iraq and international terrorists, al-Qaeda or otherwise:

1. Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report.
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/2155.html

More than that, so do the FBI and CIA; Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060203A.shtml

This lie of BushCo's was debunked last year. But to this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

2. Cheney also claimed that 1993 World Trade Center bombing co-conspirator Abdul Rahman Yasin had received “financing” and “safe haven” from Saddam’s government.

You have to really love this one...yeah he did. Sort of. He was in an Iraqi JAIL from 1994 until shortly before the invasion;

"He was being clothed and fed by them so long as he wore stripes,” joked one U.S. investigator.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067794/

Yasin had hopped onto a plane for Iraq. He was picked up by the Iraqi police a year later and had been held without a charge placed against him. Iraq had twice offered to deliver him to the United States, but only upon written receipt that Iraq had given him up… "like a receipt for a FedEx package"
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00755.html

but the US refused the offer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2022991.stm

Yasin was picked up by the FBI a few days after the bombing in an apartment in Jersey City, N.J., that he was sharing with his mother. He was so helpful and cooperative, giving the FBI names and addresses, that they released him.

Yasin says he was even driven back home in an FBI car.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

The FBI agree, saying they decided to let Yasin go free.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/31/60minutes/main510795.shtml

Yasin, whose picture is on the FBI Web site along with Osama bin Laden, is one of President Bush’s 22 most-wanted terrorists.

3. Ansar al-Islam, a radical Kurdish group, whose leader lives a free man in Norway, after 2 FBI interrogations found nothing to even declare him an "enemy combatant".

Of course there's that other pesky little fact, that Ansar al lives in the Kurdish north of Iraq, out of Saddam's control and under Kurdish AND AMERICAN control for the past 13 years.

http://www.iht.com/articles/85957.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO302B.html

NO Saddam DID NOT kick the UN weapons inspectors out in 1998;
http://www.fair.org/activism/post-expulsions.html

Amidst controversy, Butler withdrew the UNSCOM team for safety reasons ahead of US bombing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_production_and_use_of_weapons_of_mass_destruction

As for bush's "coalition", 161 out of 193 nations said no, and ONLY the USA ever had a citizen majority that was pro-invasion. The populations of the countries in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" make up only about 10 percent of the world's population.

Only 2 nations participated with troops for the actual invasion; the UK and Australia.

17 of bush's "coalition" nations are listed on the US State Dept website as being "not free" or "partially free".

Transparancy International reports 24 nations (over half) have high levels of corruption.

The US State Dept human rights survey list describes 18 of these nations as having "poor" or "extremely poor" human rights situations. For example, the State Department report notes that torture and/or extrajudicial killings were carried out by security forces in coalition members Albania, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Macedonia, Nicaragua, Philippines, and Uzbekistan.

NOT in bush's "coalition" are 11 of 15 Security Council nations; 49 of 53 African nations; 26 out of 33 Latin American nations; both Canada and Mexico; a total of 161 nations.

http://www.ips-dc.org/coerced.htm

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted the US had had no fresh intelligence prior to 1998 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before going to war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995042,00.html

The bipartisan Senate House Intelligence Committee report backs Rummy up on that;

"Most of the information was collected before 1998, when U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq because the United States had made it clear it was about to strike the country", the two members noted.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A19528-2003Sep29¬Found=true

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had "not been able to build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years".

America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Ie, the sanctions were working.

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

Seven Months Before 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet, testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East and that they had no new evidence Iraq had or was acquiring WMD.

So we had NO NEW EVIDENCE after 1998, and in 2001 we have the CIA, Powell, and Rice saying Iraq was NO THREAT to anyone, and the sanctions were working.

So how come in 2002, with NO NEW EVIDENCE, suddenly they were saying Iraq WAS a threat?

The media replayed over & over film of Chirac greeting Saddam Hussein in the 1970s. Chirac was mocked and ridiculed for it. How come they not once showed Rumsfeld greeting Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s? Why no mocking & ridiculing of Rumsfeld?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

Why no word on how Detroit handed Saddam the key to the city in 1979?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/26/iraq/main546287.shtml

What about this fact; Saddam's regime was using much of Iraq's burgeoning oil revenue to improve the daily lives of its people. It even won UN humanitarian awards for its literacy programs.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/

Why does a recently released study show 80% of Fox viewers held (hold) 3 basic misconceptions on Iraq?
http://truthout.org/docs_03/100403F.shtml

Was all of this known to Congress before the invasion? Sure it was. Here's Republican Ron Paul speaking in September 2002;
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/6404

In fact, the vast majority of Americans believed bush had NOT made his case for war, right before the invasion;

USATODAY.com - Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war

More than two-thirds of Americans believe the Bush administration has failed to make its case that a war against Iraq is justified
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

Poll: Support For a War With Iraq Weakens Among Americans

Seven in 10 Americans would give U.N. weapons inspectors months more to pursue their arms search in Iraq, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll that found growing doubts about an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
http://middleeastinfo.org/article1795.html

While the US State Media pundits and the bushCabal told you it was just a few fringe libruls dissenting, that's not, in fact, true;

Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary:

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072479

President GHW Bush, 1998;

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
http://www.rense.com/general43/quote.htm

Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party’s most respected foreign policy advisors, and national security adviser under President Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush:

Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. "Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Norman Schwarzkopf - Four Star General:

"The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq….(And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

Col. David Hackworth (ret), America's most highly decorated soldier:

"Should the president decide to stay the war course, hopefully at least a few of our serving top-uniformed leaders - those who are now covertly leaking that war with Iraq will be an unparalleled disaster - will do what many Vietnam-era generals wish they would have done: stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786

James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran:

"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? …In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets…. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall."
http://www.sftt.org/article09302002a.html

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S.:

"It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot, and are hot to go to war, see it another…We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started."

Hawks in the Bush administration may be making deadly miscalculations on Iraq, says Gen. Anthony Zinni, Bush's Middle East envoy.

"I'm not sure which planet they live on"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni

Republican Dissent on Iraq
Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors:

"Mr. President, …The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back…. A Billion Bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
- Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001444.html

Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml

TOP REPUBLICANS BREAK WITH BUSH ON IRAQ STRATEGY

Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made the case that it is needed.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml

Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency:

"Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends…. I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

Retired General Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command:

"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

Col. Mike Turner (ret), Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm:

“The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on...The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm...Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely...Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN...The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens...”
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html

US Air Force General, Tony McPeak, a four-star general who headed the U.S. Air Force during Operation Desert Storm:

McPeak served four years on the Joint Chiefs of Staff advising Bush’s father and then President Clinton after flying 269 Vietnam combat missions and participating in the Thunderbirds, the elite aerobatic team.

McPeak believes that President Bush should publicly admit personal failure. He claims Bush has botched the crucial process of coalition-building, has not enlisted the United Nations, and has failed to rebuild Afghanistan as a model of reconstruction.
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=57303%3Ehttp://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=57303%20

Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46538-2004Jun16.html

Growing GOP Dissent On Iraq
Republican Party ranks are beginning to break and the White House is worried. Longtime GOP critics on Iraq are growing progressively more vocal in their condemnation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/07/politics/main610787.shtml

Republican Rep. Bereuter: War in Iraq not justified

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action. That's especially true in view of the fact that the attack was initiated "without a broad and engaged international coalition," the 1st District congressman said.

"Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified."

As a result of the war, he said, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," he said.

Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/08/18/top_story/10053833.txt

And things still aren't going very well;

Republican senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee;

"No, I don't think we're winning," Hagel told a CBS interviewer. "We're in trouble, we're in deep trouble in Iraq."
http://www.iht.com/articles/539563.htm

Republican senator Richard Lugar, Foreign Relations Committee chairman, was asked on ABC why only $1 billion of the $18 billion appropriated last year for Iraqi reconstruction had been spent.

"Well, this is the incompetence in the administration," he replied.
http://www.iht.com/articles/539563.htm

Are we safer, as bush keeps saying? OOPS nope.

”We have a stronger jihadi presence in Iraq today than in March 2003,” noted Roger Cressey, the former director for Transnational Threats in Bush's National Security Council at a briefing at the libertarian Cato Institute earlier this week.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0911-01.htm

Worldwide terrorism-related deaths on the rise
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435%20 /

US Losing the War on Terror in Iraq; The invasion of Iraq has increased, not decreased. the threat of terrorist attack
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2629.html

Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/0526iissreport.htm

Iraq Invasion Hurt War on Terror
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-10.htm

Musharraf: World more dangerous because of Iraq War
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/25/03544/7945

Blix Says Iraq War May Have Worsened Terror Threat
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-02.htm

Poll: Aussies, Brits, Italians say Iraq war increased terrorism
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/5027215.html

Iraq intervention increased threat of terrorism
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/c7/9d/200409100845.68f9c878.html

UK Government; Iraq war 'increased terror threat'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3451239.stm

Iraq war has swollen ranks of al Qaeda
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1063717,00.html

US State Department Corrects Report to Show Rise in Terrorism
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5264512 /

Iraq has become a terrorist spawning ground, CIA admits
http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/Iraq-a-terrorist-spawning-ground-CIA-admits/2005/02/17/1108609349394.html?oneclick=true

Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050216/us_nm/security_usa_dc_9

But the majority of Americans -62%- thought before bush's illegal invasion that invading Iraq would increase terrorism; they were correct;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/07/opinion/meyer/main539846.shtml

And now we're told another attack is coming.

Rumsfeld warned on Wednesday that terrorists are regrouping for another strike.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBTNH0O95E.html

As for the short-lived attempt by bushCartel to claim invading and occupying Iraq a "humanitarian intervention", there's a good reaon that excuse was so short-lived;

The vast majority of Americans say "humanitarian" is not justification
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-06.htm

Human Rights Watch; Iraq invasion cannot be justified as humanitarian intervention
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0126-07.htm

Britain's Tony Blair admitting the "300,000" in mass graves in Iraq was untrue didn't help bush's "humanitarian" rhetoric, either, especially when Blair admitted there'd been only some 5000 remains found in those mass graves;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html

The Iraqis aren't very grateful to us;

Poll: Only 2% of Iraqis View the US as Liberators, 97% as Occupiers
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=7752&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

Killing other people & their kids tend to make people ungrateful;

CNN.com - Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

The world hates us:

Amnesty Slams "Bankrupt" Vision of US in Damning Rights Report
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0526-02.htm

Poll: Bush 'Biggest Threat to Justice and Peace'
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2002/1109-Poll.html

'SQUANDERED SYMPATHY'; Poll reveals world anger at Bush
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1328053,00.html

For the first time, statistics show world's dislike of Bush translating into dislike of Americans in general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1394393,00.html

While the world and half of America know the facts, and most knew them prior to bush's invasion, bush supporters are still totally in the dark. The majority of bush supporters still continue to believe Iraq was involved in the 911 attacks, had ties to al Qaeda, had WMD etc;

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

But even with so many still so wrong on the facts, only 42% of Americans now approve of bush's invasion;
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0211-04.htm

Gee...and it only took, so far, the deaths of 1471 uniformed American men, women and teens;
http://icasualties.org/oif/

And over $300 billion US dollars...YOUR dollars. So far.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0502/16/A04-90621.htm

[Ironpost]

1. I just thought I was scared,

Sent it to my friend and printed it. Thank you

[TolstoyAndy]

2. Thanks, Lynn

You rock - this is a great resource.
Kicked and nominated!

[realFedUp]

3. bookmarked, thanks.

hope it goes into demopedia too.

[Roland99]

4. Day-um! Post of the year!

[LynnTheDem]

5. Thanks, all!

:hug:

[TNOE]

6. Yep - bookmarked

what a great source of everything Iraq (apparently) - will have to read later! Great work Lynn and very useful!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. Excellent list of facts.

Thank you for taking the time to post it.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

8. Wow!

Got it for posterity. Nice job! :)

[MichiganVote]

9. Wow. Good read.

[LynnTheDem]

10. Thanks!

:)

[Hissyspit]

11. When you said very long...

You weren't kidding. :P Fantastic job, Thanks.

[LynnTheDem]

15. And I cut a whole ton of side-issue stuff out.

:D

Thanks! :)

[AuntiBush]

12. Excellent Posting!

Thank you for all you're diligent hard-work.

Question: WTF does this say for our future, both here and abroad? Chilling... the only word I can come-up with.

[LynnTheDem]

13. If we continue to ignore what's done in America's name, outlook not good.

The world's been very forgiving of what we've done the past few decades. They're starting to change that.

Most Americans don't even know the USA was indicted & found guilty in the US state-sanctioned deaths of 30,000 Nicaraguans by the World Court and ordered to pay restitution. America agreed to do so but after a year of payments made a deal with the Nicaraguan govt to do trade deals instead of payments. Nicaragua agreed. A year after that, the USA froze all trade deals with Nicaragua, and they remain frozen today.

If Nicaraguans attacked America, Americans would sit stunned and wonder "Why do they hate us?".

Because of what our government has done and continues to do in our name; kill other people's kids.

Until Americans wake up to the facts & reality of their own country's actual real history, we'll continue spiraling down the path we're now on.

Ignoring the washed-out bridge on the road ahead of you won't stop you falling into the ravine. Warning about the ravine doesn't make a person "unAmerican" or "unpatriotic" or "anti-American" or a "traitor". But far too many Americans think exactly that. The ONLY nation in the world that had current intell on the ground in Iraq was France. They tried to warn America of the washed-out bridge; look what so many Americans did and still do to France in return.

We thump our chests and tell ourselves "we're the best, we're the greatest, everyone is jealous of us"...while we have a 3rd world power grid, a 3rd world literacy rate, a 3rd world infant mortality rate, while other nations surpass us on personal freedoms and standard of living and worker's rights and technology, while we have starving men, women & children, rising poverty...

Yet over HALF our budget is spent on ever-increasing military defense.

We tell starving peoples in Africa buy our GMOs or we won't give you AIDS medicines.

We tell the world to do as we say, not as we do.

We for some reason think we're fooling not only ourselves, but also the rest of the world. We're not fooling the world. We never have.

bush & the Iraq bullshit have many examples in point;

-Most Americans thought Iraq did 911. NO other nation in the world ever thought such a thing. Even Blair didn't try to use that as his excuse for invasion.

-Most Americans thought most the world supported bush's invasion; that's flat-out false and always has been flat-out false. The entire world has always known that in fact even bush's "coalition" nations had not one single country with a citizen majority that supported the invasion.

The more the gap widens between what Americans believe and what the rest of the world know as fact, the deeper trouble we're going to be in.

I think one of the biggest problems is that the world cannot and will not give us the "USSR" excuse; the citizens of the USSR also believed many of the lies they were told by their government, but they had a good excuse; they didn't have cable TV and satt TV and world-broadcast radio and the internet where they could easily have learned the truths about what they were being told.

Americans don't have that USSR excuse; we DO have cable TV and satt TV and the internet. There is NO excuse nowadays for American ignorance, so the world assumes we're not ignorant, we really are nasty hateful little bastards that LIKE killing and raping and torturing and invading & occupying nations that were no threat to anyone.

They believe we support the atrocities committed in our names, because how could we, as such an advanced nation, NOT KNOW the truth about what's done in our names, when the rest of the world does know. Re-electing bush solidified that growing world belief that we're all "Abu Ghraibers". And we see that now in worldwide polls.

We're no longer being given the benefit of the doubt on our ignorance. And for that, while we keep on killing other people's kids and being the biggest bully on the block, we will no longer find ourselves being as tolerated by the world as we have been the past few decades.

[LynnTheDem]

14. dupe n/t

[sunnystarr]

16. Thanks for your great work!

Bookmarked and saved on hd. It was so awesome to have it all in one spot and so well done!

[ananda]

17. rkb

rahkickbump

!!!!!!!!

[understandinglife]

18. An exceptionally fine post. Thank you (nt)

BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION;24/7

[Old and In the Way]

19. Just found it through Will Pitt's link at Truthout

Thank you, this is a totally amazing piece of research. I've cut and pasted this for future reference and resource background.

It is a posting like this that makes DU one of the truely great forums to be found on the internet.

The ugly truth of the evil done in our name should not be lost on any of the apologists and revisionists who provide immoral cover for Bush Republicanism. We've been commiting warcrimes against Iraq for 25 years....when is enough, enough?

[LynnTheDem]

20. Thanks, OAITW!

My friend at the ICCC just emailed me the info that my hero WRP had posted this on his FYI!!! :wow:

If I'd known that, I wouldn't have left out all the side-info stuff I left out, LOL!

BTW, I've had several DU emails asking what side-info I left out; here's a partial list;

-IraqGate, deemed at the time a far bigger scandal than Watergate by none other than Robert "traitor" Novak himself.

-Sending our troops w/out enough ammo & rifles etc for initial invasion, and 2 years later still short on rifles & ammo etc.

-Conscripting of our troops ("backdoor draft")

-Wounded US troops lying in squalor for months waiting for medical attention

-The propaganda lies; Lynch, Saddam statue toppling, Chalabi

-PNAC neocon letter signed by current bush officials pushing for invasion of Iraq for oil

-US National Energy Policy, which states US military will be used to "safeguard US interests by military force if need be".

-The "WMD" lies

-How bush was told 3 times by the US military before his invasion of "window of opportunity" to "take out" al Zarqawi in northern Kurdish Iraq; all 3 times bush said no, as it would "diminish" his push for invasion. The same al Zarqawi bush now blames for killing hundreds of US troops.

-Links to world polls pre- and post invasion, and currently, all showing majority opposed to bush invasion, including every nation in bush's "coalition".

-And I forgot Poland. BBC article of Poland's president who says the reason Poland joined bush's invasion was to get that Iraqi Gold. Oil.

[Imperialism Inc.]

21. Added to the demopedia

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Iraq_War

Thanks LynnTheDem!

[MelissaB]

22. Kick

for all to see. I missed it earlier.

:kick:

[linazelle]

23. Wow Lynn...Excellent post! Been gettin' any sleep lately? n/t

:hi:

[LynnTheDem]

25. Sleep???

I have a vague recollection of what that is...rings faint bells...

:D

[bettyellen]

24. BEST POST EVER

thank you, lynn!

[LynnTheDem]

26. Thanks, bettyellen!

:)

[geek tragedy]

27. A decent post but for the garbage about Saddam not gassing his own people.

Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja. The only ones denying it are/were Reagan flunkies.

Gawd.

And, no, I'm not going to provide the dozen links I have in the past to refute this apologia for Saddam. Do an archive search. Or a google search.

[LynnTheDem]

28. As I said, some people claim all the US govt and US military reports are

just lies to cover for Iraq against Iran.

And as I also pointed out, there is not one single US govt report and not one single US military report that contradicts the original reports.

So using the years-old "he gassed his own people" shit is AT THE LEAST a whopping pile of hypocrisy.

And as I am not a "Reagan flunky", the only ones denying it are NOT, as you state, "only Reagan flunkies".

Funny how the neocons who worship Reagan never bothered to take down any of those US govt and US military reports BEFORE using "he gassed his own people" as part of their bullshit excuse for invasion & occupation.

And you DO know Reagan wasn't even in office at the time of those reports, right? ;)

Bunches of non-Reagan flunkies;

http://newswire.indymedia.org/en/newswire/2004/06/804247.shtml