Bush's Lies

Go to today's (5/6/05) issue of Salon.com and download Joe Conason's column. Post it next to your computer. Whenever you "get into it" with one of the rightwingnuts online and he challenges you to "provide proof that Bush ever lied" in getting us into this mess in Iraq, quote from the memo in Conason's piece. It's all you'll need.

Just go to Salon.com and watch a 10 second add. You need not register nor become a premium member.

That would make me a very happy camper.

btw-this is good stuff.

doesn't it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well, sorta. But he is the criminal who lied us into this war and his supporters, although they know this, still back him 100%. Maybe its a throwback to the likes of Jessie James et al who lived outside the law due to personal convictions (but were outlaws nonetheless) but are worshiped as American folk heroes for standing up to the "Establishment."

What the minutes clearly show is that Bush and Blair secretly agreed to wage war for "regime change" nearly a year before the invasion -- and months before they asked the United Nations Security Council to support renewed weapons inspections as an alternative to armed conflict. The minutes also reveal the lingering doubts over the legal and moral justifications for war within the Blair government.

But for Americans, the most important lines in the July 23 minutes are those attributed to Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, who in spy jargon is to be referred to only as "C." The minutes indicate that Sir Richard had discovered certain harsh realities during a visit to the United States that summer:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

At the same meeting, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirmed Sir Richard's assessment:

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/05/06/bush_blair_iraq/print.html