If anyone hasn't read the In These Times article, read it now.

[Killarney]

This is a must read. It shows irrefutable proof that Bush lied on several occassions about Iraq. You know how we say "Bush lied" and the right says "no he didn't lie, he just got bad intelligence"? Well, this article proves it once and for all. HE KNEW AND HE LIED. It wasn't bad intell. He cherry-picked the intell that said what he wanted and ignored the intell--much of it from our own country that said the opposite. This is a FANTASTIC article that lays it all out. I emailed it out to several people who are on the fence (they don't believe Bush lied, they blame Tenet).

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/

[mike1963]

1. Good find

:kick:

[Tansy_Gold]

2. Kick

I'm gonna be late to work because I checked this out, read it, then printed out a couple copies to give to "friends." Well worth being late for work!

[Killarney]

7. well worth being late for work!

thanks for passing it around! the more people that read this, the better

[liberalitch]

3. surprise, surprise....

now the link doesn't work...

[Brotherjohn]

4. YES. This article should be in every paper in the land.

It is so frustrating and galling that Bush and Iraq War supporters continue to say "everybody thought" that Iraq had WMDs, and "everybody thought" they were in cahoots with Al Qaeda. "Even the U.N.", "even the French..."

BULLSHIT!

Nothing could be further from the truth. They are relying on our short memories and the failure of the U.S. Media to actually cover the story at the time.

If you, like myself and many others, read beyond the headlines and beyond McPaper (USA Today) in the months leading up to the war, you would know the obvious: "nearly every case they made for war with Iraq regarding WMDs and Al Qaeda was shot full of holes before the war, and "everybody" did NOT believe them. In fact, most of the world was arguing against the Bush administration! This includes Europe (save for the Heads of State of Spain, Italy and the U.K.), the U.N. Weapons Inspectors and most of the Security Council, millions of protestors at home and abroad, and even our own intelligence agencies on many points.

This story is one of the most concise summaries of why we know that the Bush administration in fact knew that their case for war was very weak. It would probably be placed on editorial pages, if it were to ever get widely published (which I doubt), but it is actually closer to factual news reporting than most "news" leading up to the war.

[TWiley]

10. It is VERY galling!

Thank you for noticing, and thank you for posting. It was extremely obvious to me at the time, but that was when a bad word about bush would lead to physical assult or a police investigation. I found myself in some delicate positons due to simply stating the obvious.

I will never forget one experience that I had. I was in a popular grocery store just before the invasion of Iraq, and I was bitching to a friend about duh-bya. Suddenly, someone said "I am so happy that I heard you say that, I feel the same way" Soon, the aisle was plugged with maybe 20 or more people just bitching about the ass on the hill, and how they new it was all about oil.

We attracted a couple republican assholes who began shouting "If you don't like it, then move to Iraq" and similar stupid remarks. Security was called, several of us were asked to leave the store, and the republican loudmouths were allowed to continue bitching and remained in the store.

I read here somewhere that arab oil money is buying the media. I would not be suprised by that at all

[kentuck]

5. It doesn't matter because...

He said a couple of days ago that "knowing what he knows now" he would still have invaded??? K.O. brought this up on his show last night. I'm surprised that comment isn't getting more play??

[Brotherjohn]

6. I think that could "double-hang" him, if used right.

Yes, that statement reveals that he is a stubborn idiot for sticking by his claim that he would have invaded anyway based on Saddam just being a bad guy. It reveals that he initiated a war of choice with little justification (and would likely do so again).

But by answering a question "knowing what you know now", the implication is that he believed something different then (that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda and had WMDs). He has said as much on other occasions. This article reveals that he could NOT have believed these things, if he is at all competent.

So this information (while not new and known to everyone here) reveals that he and his entire White house are either incompetent or liars.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Holy Cow!

What an awesome piece! I want to print this out and make copies. I like to keep stuff like this "on hand" at home and in my car so I can hand it to people who are ill-informed. Thanks for posting it!:hi:

[dennis4868]

9. "Bush lied" and the right says "no he didn't lie, he just got bad intellig

what I dont get is why dems on the cable tv shows fight back and say he did lie and prove it with the facts.....

First of all, it is quite obvious that Bush and the WH ignored serious warnings from many intelligence agencies that the intelligence on Iraq was faulty....Bush ignored this because otherwise he would not have gotten his war.

Bush also said many things in trying to prove to the american people that Saddam was a threat....the problem is that many of the things he was saying was not backed up by any intelligence agency or National Intelligence Estimate. For example Bush told Congress and the American people the following inthe run up to the war, all of which was NEVER suported by any of the intelligence:

1. Saddam 6 months away from a nuclear weapon;

2. MASSIVE stockpile of biological weapons;

3. Unmanned aerial vehicles that can carry WMD to the USA

4. Saddam will use his WMD against unprovoked;

5. Saddam will give his WMD to terrorist;

6. Saddam/911/al Qaeda connection

So whenever someone says that Bush did not lie but was given "bad intel" one can easily say that Bush said many things to Congress in private meetings and to the country that was not suported by any inteligence agency....how then can anyone say with a straight face that Bush was given bad intel?

[TrustingDog]

12. the news networks at the time were saying...

that the CIA and other agencies WERE NOT CONVINCED THEY HAD ENOUGH DATA TO BASE A WAR ON IRAQ ON. This was repeated many times - I recall this vividly because it felt too much like 'librul media' talk - going against the wishes of the emporer.

What the hell is in the water that makes peoples memories fade so easily?

[TrustingDog]

11. thanks for posting - fabulous article. n/t

[Killarney]

14. you're quite welcome!

:toast:

[Killarney]

13. IF THE LINK IN THE OP DOESN'T WORK, HERE'S ANOTHER

In These Times is getting ridiculous traffic. If you can't get the link to work, the whole article is also mirrored here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm