Bush Administration Lies Come Exposed

I considered calling this article “America owes the world an apology.” But then I reconsidered because the carnage, chaos, and widespread massacring of the Iraqi people at the hands of the compassionate US military are only felt by the Iraqi people themselves. Perhaps, “America owes every Iraqi an apology” would have been a better title.

Yet again, there were a handful of US citizens who bitterly opposed this war—Sean Penn, Phyllis Bennis, Phil Donahue, Chris Matthews, Senator Robin Byrd, Michael Moore, and others. At the time, they were called traitors, unpatriotic, and even supporters of Saddam Hussein—a ridiculously infantile remark. The title, then, would have been unfair to their courage and pursuit of truth.

So, that title was nixed.



- George Galloway: The War and the Lies

- Pre-War Claims Continue to Unravel

- Building Up to the Great Iraq Lie


But the crux of the article remains. The US government—from its intelligence services to its military to its war supporters—lied. And continue to lie on a daily basis.

The Bush administration—from its President down to the lowest level State Department clerk—insisted that they had the goods on Iraq, had intelligence which more than 170 other countries disputed, knew where the WMD were, and would unearth them once they went into Iraq, knew of Iraqi ties to Al-Qaida, and knew Saddam was preparing an attack on the United States.

None of these assertions has been proven true. In fact, committee after committee has unearthed proof that these assertions were false. Or falsified.

No, America, Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks.

No, America, Iraq was not linked to Al-Qaida, which was behind the 9-11 attacks.

No, America, Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD.

No, America, Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

No, America, Iraq had no chemical weapons.

No, America, Iraq had no biological weapons.

No, America, Iraq had no mobile labs.

No, America, Iraq had no anthrax.

No, America, Iraq was not even in the process of developing such weapons.

No, America, Iraq could not produce mushroom clouds in Cincinnati, St. Louis, or Austin. Maybe pungent mushrooms, but no clouds.

No, America, Iraq was not a safe haven for terrorists.

No, America, Iraq was not a “gathering threat,” but rather a diminishing one, according to Charles Duelfer, Chief US Weapons Inspector in Iraq.

Assertions, accusations, and fabricated evidence that turned out to be entirely unfounded.

What are the implications of these findings? Well, there are a few theories. The first is that the US intelligence community is the most underdeveloped, asinine and illiterate such community in the world. They cannot read, perhaps, or maybe the words were too difficult to understand. A pocket dictionary could come in handy.

The second is all of the above were already known by the intelligence community but were altered, rewritten, doctored so as to paint Iraq not as a “diminishing” threat but as a “gathering one.”

The third is that there is a group within the corridors of power that sought an invasion of Iraq at any cost, for whatever conjured reason, despite the gravity such an invasion would create in the Middle East. Perhaps, this group was affiliated with a foreign regional power.

Ironically, the premise that US lawmakers are bumbling idiots is the best option of the three because the other two have far-reaching implications that threaten the very democratic foundations of an America that once behaved as a beacon of freedom for other countries.

The second premise paints a harrowing picture of secret deals and handshakes, contracts signed, and middlemen in private jets taking a nation to war for the privileges of the few. Think Halliburton.

The third premise raises the prospect that foreign interests dictate US foreign policy. That the whims and expansionist desires of other leaders and countries have the power to put US soldiers in foreign lands to do another country’s bidding. Think Sharon. Think Israel.

The American people have a difficult choice to make. Do they admonish the actions, misdeeds, and arrogance of an administration that has systematically lied about every single foundation used to launch a war, and reelect that administration to four more years in power? Do they turn the other cheek as America’s standing in the world is brought to its knees and a once proud and moral nation is seen by nearly seven billion people as a shameless, antagonistic, colonialist liar and aggressor?

How can an electorate, which has been shown again and again by its media that every—repeat, every—pre-war bit of information has been and is continuing to be proven wrong, exonerate the perpetrators of the misinformation?

(Incidentally, US media has a lot to answer for in the run-up to the war. By not asking the right questions of the Bush administration and accepting as gospel every WMD assertion, the fourth estate failed the American people it is bound by ethics to serve. The fact that Dan Rather was butchered by his contemporaries for the allegedly doctored documents regarding Bush’s National guard duty, and that the rest of the media was not held accountable for the pre-war intelligence reporting, is simply astonishing, if not downright frightening.)

America is a beautiful country and the democratic institutions and principles upon which it was founded have inspired nations and peoples for centuries. However, democracy does not simply constitute the right to wave or burn a flag or the right to wage war and impose sanctions. Democracy is not merely about freedom of speech and the right to bare arms.

Democracy is primarily about accountability and responsibility for it is an enlightening, yet terrible burden. Democracy is about holding a government accountable for its actions, for its statements, for its programs, for its analyses of situations or economic indicators. Democracy is about the responsibility an elected government has to its electorate to tell the truth whether it is in south central Los Angeles or what US forces in Iraq are doing.

The first lines of the US Constitution says it all: “We the people of the United States.” It doesn’t say we the board of trustees of Halliburton or we the rich and powerful of the United States.

A difficult choice, indeed.

Postscript: British media recently aired a video taken from a US fighter plane firing on a group of civilians. The US pilot tells his commanders “I got numerous individuals on the road, do you want me to take those out?” The commander immediately replies, “take them out.” The possibility they could have been civilians is not even considered. Once an air-to-surface missile is fired at the group of civilians, the pilot says “Oh, dude.”

This is the callousness with which the US military has liberated Iraq. Oh, dude, those were not armed “terrorists” or a school of fish. Armed resistance groups do not run out in the street when a warplane flies overhead; they do not cluster making themselves an easy target. The US military has said that resistance fighters are sophisticated in their operations.

According to The Independent, “At no point during the exchange between the pilot and controllers does anyone ask whether the Iraqis are armed or posing a threat.”

Did someone ask why they hate us again?