Iraq War Timeline: Lie by Lie

[ADK_Forever]

From: Lie By Lie

Below is #10. Check out the link for 1 - 9.

10) On the reason for invading Iraq

Turning to Iraq, Jonathan Karl said, "You probably saw -- Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war," and Cheney responded, "I disagree with that. I think the -- as I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren't any stockpiles. What we found in the after-action reports after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was, what they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feedstocks. They also found that he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted."

THE LIE: Brazen to the end, Cheney has clung to the WMD deception as though it had ever been anything other than an excuse for regime change following the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, driven by a deranged desire to gain geopolitical supremacy and establish an ill-defined facsimile of the American political and economic system in the heart of the Middle East.

No one credible agrees with Cheney's assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities -- or his intentions -- and in addition, of course, Cheney has a colourful and reprehensible record of bullying the intelligence agencies into finding reasons to invade Iraq, and promoting the fiction that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger.

Moreover, two of Cheney's particular enthusiasms -- the torture of prisoners, and the invasion of Iraq -- came together when Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the head of the Khaldan military training camp in Afghanistan (which had little connection with al-Qaeda) was captured and sent to Egypt to be tortured, where he made a false confession that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Al-Libi later recanted his confession, but not until Secretary of State Colin Powell -- to his eternal shame -- has used the story in February 2003 in an attempt to persuade the UN to support the invasion of Iraq.

This, of course, is disturbing enough, but as David Rose explained in an article in Vanity Fair that coincided with Cheney's recent ABC News interview, al-Libi was not the only torture victim spouting nonsense about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

According to two senior intelligence analysts, Abu Zubaydah, the facilitator for the Khaldan camp, who, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was subjected to torture -- including waterboarding -- also made a number of false confessions about connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, beyond one ludicrous claim which was subsequently leaked by the administration: that Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were working with Saddam Hussein to destabilize the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. One of the analysts, who worked at the Pentagon, explained, "The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be."

However, none of the analysts knew that these confessions had been obtained through torture. :roll: The Pentagon analyst told David Rose, "As soon as I learned that the reports had come from torture, once my anger had subsided I understood the damage it had done. I was so angry, knowing that the higher-ups in the administration knew he was tortured, and that the information he was giving up was tainted by the torture, and that it became one reason to attack Iraq." He added, "It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective."

This is the end, for now, of my tour through the dark, unjust and counter-productive world fashioned by Dick Cheney and his colleagues and close advisers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but I hope -- as disturbing rumors begin to swirl -- that it serves to confirm how a Presidential pardon for the Vice President would, effectively, be an endorsement for some of the cruellest manfestations of unfettered executive power and disdain for the rule of law that the United States has ever experienced.

 

[GOP Socialist Soldier]

Biden claims him and Obama will be looking forward and any investigations dealing with illegal or criminal deeds or activities done during the Bush executive order war are the past. Funny, no one used that excuse during the Nuremberg Trials.

 

[bhkad]

From: Lie By Lie

Below is #10. Check out the link for 1 - 9.

10) On the reason for invading Iraq

Turning to Iraq, Jonathan Karl said, "You probably saw -- Karl Rove last week said that if the intelligence had been correct, we probably would not have gone to war," and Cheney responded, "I disagree with that. I think the -- as I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren't any stockpiles. What we found in the after-action reports after the intelligence report was done and then various special groups went and looked at the intelligence and what its validity was, what they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feedstocks. They also found that he had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted."

THE LIE: Brazen to the end, Cheney has clung to the WMD deception as though it had ever been anything other than an excuse for regime change following the illegal invasion of a sovereign country, driven by a deranged desire to gain geopolitical supremacy and establish an ill-defined facsimile of the American political and economic system in the heart of the Middle East.

No one credible agrees with Cheney's assessment of Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities -- or his intentions -- and in addition, of course, Cheney has a colourful and reprehensible record of bullying the intelligence agencies into finding reasons to invade Iraq, and promoting the fiction that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain "yellowcake" uranium ore from Niger.

Moreover, two of Cheney's particular enthusiasms -- the torture of prisoners, and the invasion of Iraq -- came together when Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the head of the Khaldan military training camp in Afghanistan (which had little connection with al-Qaeda) was captured and sent to Egypt to be tortured, where he made a false confession that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Al-Libi later recanted his confession, but not until Secretary of State Colin Powell -- to his eternal shame -- has used the story in February 2003 in an attempt to persuade the UN to support the invasion of Iraq.

This, of course, is disturbing enough, but as David Rose explained in an article in Vanity Fair that coincided with Cheney's recent ABC News interview, al-Libi was not the only torture victim spouting nonsense about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

According to two senior intelligence analysts, Abu Zubaydah, the facilitator for the Khaldan camp, who, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was subjected to torture -- including waterboarding -- also made a number of false confessions about connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, beyond one ludicrous claim which was subsequently leaked by the administration: that Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were working with Saddam Hussein to destabilize the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. One of the analysts, who worked at the Pentagon, explained, "The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be."

However, none of the analysts knew that these confessions had been obtained through torture. :roll: The Pentagon analyst told David Rose, "As soon as I learned that the reports had come from torture, once my anger had subsided I understood the damage it had done. I was so angry, knowing that the higher-ups in the administration knew he was tortured, and that the information he was giving up was tainted by the torture, and that it became one reason to attack Iraq." He added, "It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective."

This is the end, for now, of my tour through the dark, unjust and counter-productive world fashioned by Dick Cheney and his colleagues and close advisers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but I hope -- as disturbing rumors begin to swirl -- that it serves to confirm how a Presidential pardon for the Vice President would, effectively, be an endorsement for some of the cruellest manfestations of unfettered executive power and disdain for the rule of law that the United States has ever experienced.

Based on what information you have it's reasonable to assume what you have. But you are operating without important pieces of the puzzle. I'm too tired to do it right now but I intend to provide at least two crucial pieces of the puzzle that will make the administration's actions not only make sense but seem wise and noble.

Given the circumstances you'd do the same as they did but you might have been tempted to spell it out to the world. Bushco just chose to keep it secret.

 

[Billo_Really]

Based on what information you have it's reasonable to assume what you have. But you are operating without important pieces of the puzzle. I'm too tired to do it right now but I intend to provide at least two crucial pieces of the puzzle that will make the administration's actions not only make sense but seem wise and noble.

Given the circumstances you'd do the same as they did but you might have been tempted to spell it out to the world. Bushco just chose to keep it secret.

I've already debunked everything you intend to say.

I did it right here.

It's lengthy. Took me 4-5 whole posts to get it all. But it is most of the Lie-by-Lie article, with my comments on each, debunking what you are too tired to provide at this time.

 

[Billo_Really]

Biden claims him and Obama will be looking forward and any investigations dealing with illegal or criminal deeds or activities done during the Bush executive order war are the past. Funny, no one used that excuse during the Nuremberg Trials.

At least they had a trial.

I doubt if Bush/Cheney will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

 

[bhkad]

Based on what information you have it's reasonable to assume what you have. But you are operating without important pieces of the puzzle. I'm too tired to do it right now but I intend to provide at least two crucial pieces of the puzzle that will make the administration's actions not only make sense but seem wise and noble.

Given the circumstances you'd do the same as they did but you might have been tempted to spell it out to the world. Bushco just chose to keep it secret.

I've already debunked everything you intend to say.

I did it right here.

It's lengthy. Took me 4-5 whole posts to get it all. But it is most of the Lie-by-Lie article, with my comments on each, debunking what you are too tired to provide at this time.

The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has.

But here is what we know and can surmise:

What We Know And Can Surmise About The Invasion of Iraq

Let us take an imaginary leap of fancy to suppose that Bushco was "chafing" to attack Iraq.

Why would this be so?

I'd say it was to prevent a much larger war that spilled out throughout the entire Middle East and might have triggered a global war.

How do I come to this conclusion? By way of what we know and what we can reasonably surmise from the situation.

We KNOW (from CBS 60 Minutes Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro) that Saddam was making speeches which alluded to the existence of WMD's.

We KNOW that Israel had been attacked by Iraqi SCUD missiles in the 1991 Gulf War and the Israelis were concerned enough that these missiles contained bio or chemical agents that they issued gas masks to every citizen.

We KNOW that Israel wanted to retaliate but the US prevented not only their response after the first SCUD attacks but we stopped the IDF from participating in the coalition to preserve the Arab character of the war against Iraq.

We KNOW that whenever Israel is threatened they take action to negate that threat. (The Osirak Nuclear reactor attack 1981, and the recent targeted air attacks on Gaza following 1,000's of missiles launched on Israel since the end of the 6 month Cease Fire, for example.)

Based on what we know we can SURMISE there was pressure on the Israeli government to negate this perceived EXISTENTIAL WMD threat. But in attacking Saddam's perceived WMD's the probability existed that the Israelis would have triggered a larger war.

We KNOW that Israeli PM Sharon counseled President Bush before the invasion of Iraq.

What we do not know are the details of those discussions.

But based on what we know it is not all that difficult to make a plausible and reasonable argument that if the Bush Administration was "chafing" to go to war with Iraq it was with good justification.

A Middle Eastern War from Algeria to Afghanistan could easily have triggered a global holy war and cost millions of lives and resulted in nuclear exchanges with Pakistan, at least.

Instead we have two wars, limited in scope, one of them winnable and almost won, with far fewer casualties.

The facts of the matter will not be necessarily ever be revealed but I believe that knowing the truth should vindicate GWB and should be very interesting.

 

[Iriemon]

The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has.

I thought the argument was that Congress was equally to blame for Iraq because they had the same information that the administration did.

 

[bhkad]

I thought the argument was that Congress was equally to blame for Iraq because they had the same information that the administration did.

That was never part of my rationale.

Mine is that, although there is information that only the President and Congress had, there is also information the President can gain from a phone call or a meeting that the Congress would not necessarily be privileged to.

 

[Iriemon]

That was never part of my rationale.

No, I never bought it either. But you see folks arguing all the times the Dems are just as much to blame for the war as Bush because they voted for the authorization resolution.

But as you point out, the Bush adminsitration had a lot of info they didn't. Clearly the buck stops with Bush for the Iraq fiasco.

 

[bhkad]

No, I never bought it either. But you see folks arguing all the times the Dems are just as much to blame for the war as Bush because they voted for the authorization resolution.

But as you point out, the Bush adminsitration had a lot of info they didn't. Clearly the buck stops with Bush for the Iraq fiasco.

Just as long as you credit him for the successes I won't squawk.

 

[JMak]

I thought the argument was that Congress was equally to blame for Iraq because they had the same information that the administration did.

Who is arguing this? That seems to be a silly notion. I know I raise the role of Congress when responding to some damned fool who argues that Bush unilaterally went to war or that Congress was hoodwinked.

Bhkar is correct that the President has more data than the Foreign Relations Cmte but that's irrelevant. The more relevant point is that the ranking members of Congress and members of the SSIC and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence have access to raw intelligence analyses the same as the President does.

Based on that access we saw the ranking Democrat of the SSIC at the time, Rockefeller, characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" just as another member Edwards did.

But you see folks arguing all the times the Dems are just as much to blame for the war as Bush because they voted for the authorization resolution.

Not to blame. They are as responsible. They were not hoodwinked.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who is arguing this? That seems to be a silly notion. I know I raise the role of Congress when responding to some damned fool who argues that Bush unilaterally went to war or that Congress was hoodwinked.

Bhkar is correct that the President has more data than the Foreign Relations Cmte but that's irrelevant. The more relevant point is that the ranking members of Congress and members of the SSIC and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence have access to raw intelligence analyses the same as the President does.

Based on that access we saw the ranking Democrat of the SSIC at the time, Rockefeller, characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" just as another member Edwards did.

Not to blame. They are as responsible. They were not hoodwinked.

Two things:

1. Of coarse Bush attacked "unilaterally". He never received UNSC authorization to "use all necessary means" and I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one Security Councel resolution that contains the words "regime change".
2. This whole issue of how much Congress is to blame is a moot point. Because Bush started the war 9 months before the vote on HR114. Which, incidently, is an impeachable act.

 

[Iriemon]

Who is arguing this? That seems to be a silly notion. I know I raise the role of Congress when responding to some damned fool who argues that Bush unilaterally went to war or that Congress was hoodwinked.

Bhkar is correct that the President has more data than the Foreign Relations Cmte but that's irrelevant. The more relevant point is that the ranking members of Congress and members of the SSIC and the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence have access to raw intelligence analyses the same as the President does.

Based on that access we saw the ranking Democrat of the SSIC at the time, Rockefeller, characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" just as another member Edwards did.

I'll let Bkhad defend his assertion if he wants: "The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has."

 

[Billo_Really]

The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has.

But here is what we know and can surmise:

What We Know And Can Surmise About The Invasion of Iraq

Let us take an imaginary leap of fancy to suppose that Bushco was "chafing" to attack Iraq.

Why would this be so?

I'd say it was to prevent a much larger war that spilled out throughout the entire Middle East and might have triggered a global war.

How do I come to this conclusion? By way of what we know and what we can reasonably surmise from the situation.

We KNOW (from CBS 60 Minutes Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro) that Saddam was making speeches which alluded to the existence of WMD's.

We KNOW that Israel had been attacked by Iraqi SCUD missiles in the 1991 Gulf War and the Israelis were concerned enough that these missiles contained bio or chemical agents that they issued gas masks to every citizen.

We KNOW that Israel wanted to retaliate but the US prevented not only their response after the first SCUD attacks but we stopped the IDF from participating in the coalition to preserve the Arab character of the war against Iraq.

We KNOW that whenever Israel is threatened they take action to negate that threat. (The Osirak Nuclear reactor attack 1981, and the recent targeted air attacks on Gaza following 1,000's of missiles launched on Israel since the end of the 6 month Cease Fire, for example.)

Based on what we know we can SURMISE there was pressure on the Israeli government to negate this perceived EXISTENTIAL WMD threat. But in attacking Saddam's perceived WMD's the probability existed that the Israelis would have triggered a larger war.

We KNOW that Israeli PM Sharon counseled President Bush before the invasion of Iraq.

What we do not know are the details of those discussions.

But based on what we know it is not all that difficult to make a plausible and reasonable argument that if the Bush Administration was "chafing" to go to war with Iraq it was with good justification.

A Middle Eastern War from Algeria to Afghanistan could easily have triggered a global holy war and cost millions of lives and resulted in nuclear exchanges with Pakistan, at least.

Instead we have two wars, limited in scope, one of them winnable and almost won, with far fewer casualties.

The facts of the matter will not be necessarily ever be revealed but I believe that knowing the truth should vindicate GWB and should be very interesting.

We also know that Hussein was completely contained within Iraq.

We also know that Hussein was not threatening anyone at that time.

We also know that UN inspectors were crawling all around that country looking for WMD's.

We also know, at that time, no WMD's had been found.

We also know that Curveball was unreliable.

We also know that the IAEA said the uranium tubes were for centrifuges, not weapons.

We also know that Iraq was in compliance with all UNSC resolutions at the time we attacked.

We also know that George Bush said Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors in the country at the same time UN inspectors were in that country.

We also know that Bush tried to make everyone believe that a country with barely any running water or electricity, 9000 miles away with no navy, is a threat to the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen.

My question to you is:

"How big of a threat can you be on 9 hours of electricity a day"

 

[JMak]

Two things:
[*]Of coarse Bush attacked "unilaterally". He never received UNSC authorization to "use all necessary means" and I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one Security Councel resolution that contains the words "regime change".

I see. So now we just change what words mean to suit our preferred narratives, eh?

Look, unilateralism ain't defined as not having a permission slip from the UN Security Council. Just as multilateralism ain't having a permission slip.

Who argued that any resolution contained the words, "regime change?"

I love this nonsense you spew implying that a permission slip from the UN Security Council is necessary before any war is right, just, noble, moral, whatever. What a joke.

Why stop there? Why not simply subordinate our national government to the will of the UN Security Council? I mean, if that counil is going to exercise control over US foreign policy why not have them determine US domestic policy, too? Maybe we can scrap our governing institutions altogether, eh?

[*]This whole issue of how much Congress is to blame is a moot point. Because Bush started the war 9 months before the vote on HR114. Which, incidently, is an impeachable act.

First, who even argues like this? Who argues that one branch is to blame for this or that? This is the consequence of the lefty fetish with apologies. You people are constantly looking for someone to blame. No longer do you even talk about accountability or responsibility.

Second, what is impeachable is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. Your hyper-partisan crap abut what is impeachable or not is, well, childish.

 

[ADK_Forever]

I'll let Bkhad defend his assertion if he wants: "The President is aware of information that we aren't and it is this information that goes into his decision making. Not even the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is privvy to some of the information the President has."

You give him way too much credit for honesty, integrity and intelligence.

What would you say if you found out, in another thread, that Bush had information and still acted as if he didn't have it?

 

[Renae]

At least they had a trial.

I doubt if Bush/Cheney will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

Probably because they haven't done anything to deserve seeing a courtroom... but hey, that there is crazy talk right?

 

[Renae]

Why stop there? Why not simply subordinate our national government to the will of the UN Security Council? I mean, if that counil is going to exercise control over US foreign policy why not have them determine US domestic policy, too? Maybe we can scrap our governing institutions altogether, eh?

There are those reading this statement nodding their heads and thinking "what a great idea..." scary ain't it?

 

[Renae]

We also know that Hussein was completely contained within Iraq.

Cept for all that money and support going to various terrorist organizations... do we wait for that support to result in a hit on the USA?

We also know that Hussein was not threatening anyone at that time.

Not directly, this is true.

We also know that UN inspectors were crawling all around that country looking for WMD's.

This is also true, you do leave out the fact the Saddam Regime was actively playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors... making it appear they were hiding something. But let's ignore that red flag.

We also know, at that time, no WMD's had been found.

Some have been, but most of it was left over stock from 10-20 years ago, so your statement factually is inaccurate. That and 200 tons of Uranium Yellow Cake was moved out of Iraq negates your statement entirely.

We also know that Curveball was unreliable.

We know that now, we know he was both trusted and suspected at the time. Hindsight is not wisdom.

We also know that the IAEA said the uranium tubes were for centrifuges, not weapons.

And it's also REALLY easy to change that from "civilian" to "military applications".

We also know that Iraq was in compliance with all UNSC resolutions at the time we attacked.

Wrong.

We also know that George Bush said Hussein wouldn't allow inspectors in the country at the same time UN inspectors were in that country.

And why was this.. oh yes to perpetuate the lie and ensure the oil companies are enriched... my bad.

We also know that Bush tried to make everyone believe that a country with barely any running water or electricity, 9000 miles away with no navy, is a threat to the most technologically advanced military the world has ever seen.

The USS Cole was a HIGHLY advanced warship, the terrorist that attacked used a rubber boat... result?

 

[Billo_Really]

Cept for all that money and support going to various terrorist organizations... do we wait for that support to result in a hit on the USA?


Not directly, this is true.

This is also true, you do leave out the fact the Saddam Regime was actively playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors... making it appear they were hiding something. But let's ignore that red flag.

Some have been, but most of it was left over stock from 10-20 years ago, so your statement factually is inaccurate. That and 200 tons of Uranium Yellow Cake was moved out of Iraq negates your statement entirely.

We know that now, we know he was both trusted and suspected at the time. Hindsight is not wisdom.


And it's also REALLY easy to change that from "civilian" to "military applications".

Wrong.


And why was this.. oh yes to perpetuate the lie and ensure the oil companies are enriched... my bad.


The USS Cole was a HIGHLY advanced warship, the terrorist that attacked used a rubber boat... result?

You are so ****ing wrong it makes me vomit!

Iraq had nothing to do with the USS Cole.

You stated yourself, Curveball was "suspect".

You're the one whose "wrong".

Why don't you go educate your ****ing ass!

 

[Billo_Really]

I see. So now we just change what words mean to suit our preferred narratives, eh?

Look, unilateralism ain't defined as not having a permission slip from the UN Security Council. Just as multilateralism ain't having a permission slip.

Who argued that any resolution contained the words, "regime change?"

I love this nonsense you spew implying that a permission slip from the UN Security Council is necessary before any war is right, just, noble, moral, whatever. What a joke.

Why stop there? Why not simply subordinate our national government to the will of the UN Security Council? I mean, if that counil is going to exercise control over US foreign policy why not have them determine US domestic policy, too? Maybe we can scrap our governing institutions altogether, eh?



First, who even argues like this? Who argues that one branch is to blame for this or that? This is the consequence of the lefty fetish with apologies. You people are constantly looking for someone to blame. No longer do you even talk about accountability or responsibility.

Second, what is impeachable is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. Your hyper-partisan crap abut what is impeachable or not is, well, childish.

WE ATTACKED A COUNTRY THAT DID NOT ATTACK US!

TAKE THIS BULL**** AND THROW IT IN THE RIVER!

 

[Billo_Really]

Probably because they haven't done anything to deserve seeing a courtroom... but hey, that there is crazy talk right?

THAT'S RIGHT!

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ****ING CRAZY!

 

[Moon]

You are so ****ing wrong it makes me vomit!

Iraq had nothing to do with the USS Cole.

He didn't say that they did.

 

[Renae]

He didn't say that they did.

Shhhhh!!! You'll mess with his mind. Stopping to consider that I was making a point about low tech can be a threat is WAY too deep for him.

 

[Moon]

Shhhhh!!! You'll mess with his mind. Stopping to consider that I was making a point about low tech threats is WAY too deep for him.

Heh...just trying to help. :mrgreen: