"Bush wanted to remove Saddam...but the intelligence was being fixed."

[BurtWorm]

Recall that that line is in the July 23, 2002 memo. Then feast your memory on Bush's war drive remarks in Cincinatti in October 2002.



"I hope this will not require military action, but it may."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio


8:02 P.M. EDT

...


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

...


By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

...


We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

...

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

...

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

...

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

[BurtWorm]

1. "Well, we had an accountability moment...",

"and that's called the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12570-2005Jan15.html

Transcript of Bush Interview
Sunday, January 16, 2005;


(White House transcript of The Washington Post's interview with Bush, conducted by staff writers Michael A. Fletcher and Jim VandeHei aboard Air Force One en route to Jacksonville, Fla.)

So as far as Bush is concerned, the accountability moment is over. Case closed.

(I'm thankful to Tim Grieve's War Room piece at Slon.com for the links to Bush's Cincinatti speech and the Post interview transcript.)

[blm]

2. Don't forget that two Knight-Ridder journalists report "cooking the books

on Iraq intel" in Oct. 2002. The broadcast media roundly ignored the reports, even though more follow up stories from intelligence analysts confirmed this as fact many ttimes afterwards.

The corporate media wanted and needed for Bush to have his war. That's what happens when the media is owned by corporations who make most of their money from the military industry.

[BurtWorm]

3. The broadcast media seem to be ignoring the July 23 memo as well.

And the print media are treating it as an International story, a sidebar to the British election.

[blm]

8. They are doing it INTENTIONALLY to cover for BushInc. That's their job.

The "news channels" are all just part of the Public Relations Dept. for BushInc., his wars, and the fascist agenda of their corporate masters.

[BurtWorm]

9. No doubt, Fox is covering for them. I think the NBCs are as well.

And now CPB is pushing Republicanism on PBS. I don't know what CBS, ABC and CNN's excuses are, whether it's the corporate blinders (ratings, bottom line, class filter) or active intentional deceit. Whatever it is, the result is exactly the same: the Bushists' asses are kissed and covered.

[blm]

11. CNN is owned by AOL - Case is BFEE. Saudis own big share of AOL.

Does that answer your question?

CNN is worse than FOX because they are still benefitting from their old reputation of being an honest, hard news source. The deception is many times greater.

[BurtWorm]

12. Well I've stopped watching them all.

They're all about as useful. :eyes:

[BurtWorm]

10. kick

[G_j]

4. "The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end."

how true!

[BurtWorm]

5. kick

[Stephanie]

6. Telling whopping LIES appears to induce rapid aging

He looks completely different in just three years.

[BurtWorm]

7. I think they told him he could start smirking again if he wanted to.

It was holding the smirk in that taxed his features.

[BurtWorm]

13. kick

[Zodiak]

15. I am unfortunately not hopeful

All of the evidence implicates the Bush crime family in fabricating, misleading, lying, obscuring, obfuscating, and otherwise pulling out of their arses the intelligence needed to invade Iraq and kill a hundred thousand people. The news ignores it, and will continue to ignore it for many of the reasons listed earlier in this thread.

They are making money off of covering for Bush...there will NEVER be a break from the endless propaganda. The only way we can counter it is to establish our own media. AAR should only be the beginning.

Meanwhile, American journalists are arrested, killed, and detained on a fairly regular basis by the Bush crime family. Even if a journalist had information on Bush, he/she will keep it to themselves.

No one wants to be "suicided". Not when the alternative is making a buttload of cash.

[BurtWorm]

17. It's almost as though we need something other than the media.

Media, after all, mediate. A lot more people are talking about direct action. The thing is to figure out what sort of direct action--unmediated communication--to do that won't criminalize or marginalize the communicators, but that will actually have the effect of making the case to the American people. Of course everyone thinks of media to communicate, because it's most efficient. But it's also soul- and mind-deadening.

PS: Welcome to DU, by the way! :toast:

[Zorra]

14. There is now enough public evidence to indict and prosecute Bush.

If we had a real DOJ Bush and the crew would be in a maximum security jail and would be denied bail pending trial.

[BurtWorm]

16. First people in a position to do something about it need to wake up

and realize something must be done, or this will continue to be a theme of American foreign policy--as long as the US has the resources to even HAVE a foreign policy, that is.

[BurtWorm]

18. kick