News Bush & Blair: Making & Breaking Rules for Agendas

[edward]

BobG

Now that we are an empire, who is the emperor, is it Bush or Cheney?

Can an Empire finance a war by borrowing money from non empires?

 

[SOS2008]

Question 2:If you think he would or did break law in this way, do you then think that such a person might be willing to get into the White House in an illegal manner, if the opportunity was available?

Yes, Bush's entire life has consisted of dishonesty. I have posted repeated examples of this, and anyone who attempts an argument against it, fool me once...

So to the specific issue of Iraq... We know BushCo mislead Americans with connections between 9-11 terrorism and Saddam. We know UN inspections indicated little likelihood of WMD. At the minimum we know BushCo received information from several sources to the contrary, such as Joe Wilson, Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, etc., but ignored the information -- if for no other reason than "happy ears" that only hear what one wants to hear...Because we know the invasion was planned in advance of Bush becoming president (The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC))...Which calls to question how he knew he would be elected before being elected.

You probably aren't getting a lot of feedback because of fatigue, not only on this issue, but the immensity of constant scandals associated with BushCo/GOP. And quite frankly, as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress, there will be no investigation--no matter how obvious the lies or abuses.

In the meantime, King George continues to place himself above the law by either completely ignoring laws (i.e., breaking laws), or changing laws to his liking with "signing statements" for example the torture amendment, and more recently the renewal of the Patriot Act and a "signing statement" by Bush to the effect that he would not feel bound to comply with some of the provisions of the law.

THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW - Vote for Democrats in 2006!

 

[pattylou]

You probably aren't getting a lot of feedback because of fatigue, not only on this issue, but the immensity of constant scandals associated with BushCo/GOP. And quite frankly, as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress, there will be no investigation--no matter how obvious the lies or abuses.

I am not too concerned about feedback one way or the other. I posted a second time because I had a new thought about the topic.

I think it is important to continue to bring these topics up, again and again and again. I plan to post updates about electronic vote fraud sometime in the next few days.

I had forgotten about Joe Wilson, for example. If people were discussing it, it would still be in my active memory. This latest memo hasn't even been in the main headlines. these things need to be brought up.

In fact, let me go have a looky at some of the minor headlines.

 

[pattylou]

Well, here's one.

A few posts up I posted the following excerpt from the memo:

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.

(link provided above.)

Well, in the news 44 minutes ago is this release from the state department:

Bush Calls Iraqi Ethnic, Sectarian Strife Legacy of Saddam Hussein
Says the end of the regime was "the necessary first step" to restore freedom

President Bush said former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein exacerbated ethnic and sectarian divisions within his country in order to keep himself in power, and the current “toxic atmosphere” in Iraq “bears witness to his terrible handiwork.”

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=March&x=20060329181244ESnamfuaK0.2574732&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

So let's see: Sectarian violence was thought to be unlikely, three years ago. Saddam, under whom there was little sectarian violence, would be easily disposed of.

Now, three years after our invasion, sectarian violence is erupting. And the the line we are being fed is... That this is because of Saddam's leadership.
(and despite the fact that three years ago, Bush thought sectarian violence would be unlikely, and Blair agreed.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Saddam, under whom there was little sectarian violence,

Umm, did you read Chomsky's speech? Saddam bloodily put down a Shi'ite uprising, and you know what he did to the Kurds, who were also in rebellion against his (Sunni-secular) regime.

 

[pattylou]

Umm, did you read Chomsky's speech? Saddam bloodily put down a Shi'ite uprising, and you know what he did to the Kurds, who were also in rebellion against his (Sunni-secular) regime.

Sorry - meant the shia-sunni civil unrest towards each other, was not an issue. (I'd assume the uprising was directed at the government, and that it was "put down" as a matter of maintaining civil order, not as a manifestation of civil war.)

I'm repeating what iraqis are saying, in any event... The ones I hear being interviewed. I'll try to find a reference if you want one?

So why did bush/Blair indicate in 2003, that sectarian violence wouldn't be a problem? And why are they now saying that the present sectarian violence is all due to Saddam, rather than them?

Does this change in bush's position seem problematic to you?

 

[edward]

State Department experts warned CENTCOM
before Iraq war about lack of plans for
post-war Iraq security

Planning for post-Saddam regime change began
as early as October 2001

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 163
Posted - August 17, 2005

The new documents, released this month to the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, also provide more evidence on when the Bush administration began planning for regime change in Iraq -- as early as October 2001.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

This is a great link for finding declassified information.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/

 

[Amp1]

In his lecture Chomsky also called 'almost inexpresibly ironic' the fact that Bush sort of said he wanted to stop Saddam because he would give WMD and WMD material to 'Terrorists' but right after the iinvasion the UN inspectors were booted aside and the WMD materials they found and were gaqurding was opened up for looting by WHO none other than the very types of groups Bush claimed he didn't want to have access to those very materials!