The Downing Street Memos, which verify what many of us have been asserting for years about how Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al lied and rushed the country into an unnecessary war for their own twisted, power-hungry ends is not being reported in the mainstream media.

Here is a cof deception highlights:

In January 1998, leaders of the neo-con Project for the New American Century - a Hard Right think-tank that included such key figures as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Jeb Bush, Jim Woolsey, et al. - wrote a letter to President Clinton urging that he invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. (Clinton declined; he was going after bin Laden.) Later that year, when musing about a run for President in 2000 and how he would approach Iraq, Bush told his ghostwriter: "If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."

The first Bush Administration cabinet meetings in January 2001, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill reported, focused on finding ways to attack Iraq. Later that year, Bush directed Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to begin considering military options for Saddam's removal. Even after being told by his intelligence analysts that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaida and not Iraq, Rumsfeld began badgering his intelligence crew to try to include Saddam Hussein in retaliation plans. Bush himself cornered anti-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and strongly suggested that he find a way to include Saddam in the mix.

In March of 2002, Time Magazine reported that Bush told several senators visiting the White House: "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out."

In July of 2002, without going to Congress for permission, Bush took $700 million from funds Congress authorized for the Afghanistan war against Al Qaida/Taliban forces and diverted them to the coming Iraq War. Meanwhile, of course, Bush was telling the American people that he hadn't made up his mind about attacking Iraq.

The recently-revealed, top-secret Downing Street Memo, dated July 23, 2002, which talks about a just-concluded meeting between U.K. and Administration leaders at the Bush ranch in Texas, said that the "intelligence and facts" to justify the Iraq invasion to the public were to be "fixed around the policy." "Terrorism and WMD" would be the basis, the memo reported. Later, Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the Administration was having trouble agreeing on a rationale that would be seen morally acceptable and thus gain wide public support, so they finally settled on WMD - which they were sure would work. And it did, despite the fact that there were no stockpiles of those banned weapons.

In the second top-secret Downing Street Memo, released by the Times of London just a few days ago, the briefing paper for that Blair-Bush meeting of July 23, 2002, reveals that the British were worried about the illegality of the war action and that both the U.S. and Britain were anxious to find some legal excuse for their pending attack. They conceived of ways to lure Saddam Hussein into doing something belligerent that would make an attack more acceptable in the U.S. and U.N.; bombing runs by U.S. jets went on for months before the invasion, to try to provoke just such a response. But Saddam, aware of what game was being played, didn't react to the bait. Blair and Bush tried another ruse at the United Nations: they believed Saddam would object to allowing U.N. weapons inspectors back in, and thus create a casus belli, but, surprise, the Iraqi leader said the inspectors could return. Their preliminary work indicated that there were no stockpiles of WMD.

The U.N. inspections were cut off abruptly. The "shock and awe" bombing and land invasion began in March of 2003, nearly one year to the date from when Bush told the senators that Saddam was a goner, "we're taking him out."

I never thought I would be the one saying this, but what about nuance?

If intelligence was "fixed" as this Downing Street Memo indicated, were out and out lies fabricated, or was specific reports merely highlighted? Even if such reports were shaky at best. Also, America had been eyeing regime change in Iraq for quite some time, I think Bill Clinton endorsed such a policy.

I think something people need to consider is the lesser of two evils. Is Getting Bush really worth leaving the Middle East in the hands of tyrants like Saddam? I say no.

Oh, and NOW the Libs want to impeach Bush over this memo. Boy, they must be getting frustrated.

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.”

That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work – and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war – has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush’s unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters – well before he became president.

In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush’s ghostwriter after Bush’s handlers concluded that the candidate’s views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.

According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.

The revelations on Bush’s attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush’s grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.

Herskowitz also revealed the following:

-In 2003, Bush’s father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son’s invasion of Iraq.

-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been “excused.”

-Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot’s garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.

-Bush described his own business ventures as “floundering” before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.

Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews—in which he expressed consternation that Bush’s true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people —Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.

Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. “I don’t know anybody that’s ever said a bad word about Mickey,” said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz’s account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.

One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. “I can’t go near this,” he said.

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House – ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. “Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.”

Bush’s circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: “They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.”

Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter’s political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush’s father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents – Grenada and Panama – and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.

“I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. “He said, ‘No I haven’t, and I won’t, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.’ Brent would not have talked to him without the old man’s okaying it.” Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush’s administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.

Herskowitz’s revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush’s pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe’s David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: “It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam’s weapons stash,” wrote Nyhan. ‘I’d take ‘em out,’ [Bush] grinned cavalierly, ‘take out the weapons of mass destruction…I’m surprised he’s still there,” said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.’s father…It remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush’s first big clinker. ”

The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.

Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush’s father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)

In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush’s staff expressed displeasure —often over Herskowitz’s use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush’s own words to describe the Texan’s unprofitable business ventures, writing: “the companies were floundering”. “I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, ‘You’ve got some wrong information.’ I didn’t bother to say, ‘Well you know where it came from.’ [The lawyer] said, ‘We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.’ ”

In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz’s account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. “The lawyer called me and said, ‘Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.’ ”

“They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it,” he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.

According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard – and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was “excused.” This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush’s claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama – though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial “rewards” for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.

Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 – which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane – military or civilian – again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.

In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush’s father to write a book about the current president’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. “Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his office…He said, ‘I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.’ ”

“He said to me, ‘I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it’s amazing how many times something good will come out of it.’ I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], ‘Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?’ He said yes.”

That book, Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush, was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family’s perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate “as-told-to” author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz’s other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.

After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. “I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying ‘Watch your back.’ ”

Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing – a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself – it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.

So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush’s true feelings.

“He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake,” Herskowitz said. “That was one of the keys to being a leader.”

Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute.

Leaders deny Bush manipulated Iraq intelligence

WASHINGTON - President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Tuesday forcefully denied that Bush manipulated intelligence to build support for war with Iraq, as a controversial British government memo suggests.

Standing side by side in the White House, the two leaders disputed the pre-war memo, which has raised questions about whether Bush exaggerated the threat from Iraq in his zeal to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Bush and Blair were put on the defensive about the so-called Downing Street memo at a news conference intended to highlight their plans for increased aid to Africa.

Bush's critics have seized on the memo, written by one of Blair's top aides in July 2002 and made public last month, as evidence that Bush misled the world on the need for war. The document, which summarizes a visit to Washington by the head of British intelligence and other officials, says "intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the White House to support Bush's war plans.

Bush has long maintained that he didn't decide finally to go to war until shortly before combat began in March 2003.

"The facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all," Blair said, coming to Bush's defense. "No one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time. ... All the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict."

Bush said he considered war "the last option" and insisted that he wasn't fixated on removing Saddam by force.

"There's nothing farther from the truth. My conversations with the prime minister were how can we do this peacefully," he said. "We worked hard to figure out how we could do this peacefully."

The top-secret memo, written eight months before Bush ordered the Iraq invasion, was leaked to The Sunday Times of London last month in the closing days of Blair's successful campaign for a third term as prime minister. Despite his victory, Blair emerged from the election weakened by his party's losses in parliament, a setback driven in part by anger over the Iraq war.

Critics accuse Bush and Blair of misusing intelligence during the run-up to the war, and the leaders seemed ready for a question about the memo as they faced reporters in the White House. Both cited their willingness to work with the United Nations as evidence that they wanted a peaceful resolution.

Still, there's little doubt that Bush was prepared to use military force long before he chose that option. The president directed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to begin considering military options for Saddam's removal as early as 2001.

It's also clear, with hindsight, that Bush was wrong about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. On Tuesday, Bush blamed the war on Saddam's refusal to abide by U.N. demands for weapons inspections.

"He made the decision, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power," Bush said.

The lingering questions about the rationale for war overshadowed Blair's announcement that the two leaders are nearing agreement on a plan to forgive 100 percent of Africa's foreign debt. Blair hopes to make African debt relief a centerpiece of next month's G-8 summit in Scotland, which will bring together leaders from eight industrialized democracies.

"I think there is a real desire to make sure that we cancel the debt," Blair said, adding that the proposal would include compensation for institutions holding bad African debt. The two leaders also agreed to increase foreign aid to African countries that meet certain conditions.

As expected, Bush announced plans to provide an additional $674 million for African famine relief and other humanitarian assistance this year. The money will be shifted from other aid accounts. Blair has called on wealthy nations to double aid to Africa and will push for it when G-8 leaders gather at the Gleneagles golf resort on July 6.

But Bush drew a line short of Blair's goal.

"Nobody wants to give money to a country that is corrupt, where leaders take money and put it in their pocket," Bush said. "We're really not interested in supporting a government that doesn't have open economies and open markets."

On another topic, Bush didn't answer directly when asked if he believes that climate change is man-made. Bush, who abandoned the Kyoto treaty on global warming, has suggested in the past that more research is needed to determine the link between pollutants and global warming.

"I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with," Bush said. "We lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."

Woodward: Administration had 'fever' to take down Iraq

$700M diverted from Afghanistan money, book claims

WASHINGTON - President Bush asked for a plan to invade Iraq in November 2001, about three months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks and at a time when U.S. forces were still in the midst of ousting the Taliban regime from Afghanistan.

The timing of Bush's war planning, revealed in a book to be released Monday and confirmed Friday by the White House, is likely to fuel criticism that the Bush administration was preoccupied with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein at the expense of pursuing al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

"You're talking about the late period of November, when things were winding down in Afghanistan," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters, confirming that Bush spoke to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at that time "about planning related to Iraq."

"But there is a difference between planning and making a decision" to go to war, McClellan said.

The timing of Bush's planning to oust Saddam is one of several insights detailed in the book "Plan of Attack" by journalist Bob Woodward.

In two other recent books, former Bush administration insiders said that they were surprised by the president's early focus on Iraq.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Bush's intense interest in Iraq became clear within days of the president's inauguration. Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official for Bush and previous presidents, wrote that the day after the Sept. 11 attacks Bush aggressively instructed him and other aides to "see if Saddam did this," despite evidence pointing to al- Qaida. In his book, Woodward describes Vice President Dick Cheney as a "powerful, steamrolling force" in the administration that some in the government believed had a "fever" for taking down Saddam. The Iraqi leader had invaded Kuwait during the administration of Bush's father and later plotted to kill the former president.

After a CIA briefing on the spy data on Iraqi weapons, Bush said the intelligence would leave the public unconvinced. But CIA Director George Tenet described the case against Iraq as a "slam dunk."

Bush said he took Tenet's assurances as a guarantee, Woodward relayed during an interview with the CBS program "60 Minutes," scheduled to air tonight.

Woodward said he found that the administration quietly shifted money around to pay for early preparations for war in Iraq, without the approval of Congress. He said those preparations included building landing strips and addressing other military needs in Kuwait.

The money, about $700 million, was taken in July 2002 from a budget item that had been approved for the war in Afghanistan, Woodward wrote.

"Some people are going to look at that document called the Constitution, which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress," Woodward says in his CBS interview.

Wolfowitz comments revive doubts over Iraq's WMD

BRUSSELS (AP) — As President Bush begins a European tour to patch up trans-Atlantic relations, comments from senior defense officials about Iraq's weapons have revived controversy in Europe over whether the war was justified.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and said a "huge" result of the war was to enable Washington to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.

The magazine's reporter did not tape the telephone interview and provided a slightly different version of the quote in the article: "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Iraq's weapons of mass destruction may have been destroyed before the war.

"It is also possible that they (Saddam Hussein's government) decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict," he told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

Neither Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz suggested Washington fabricated weapons claims, and an aide to the defense secretary, speaking on condition of anonymity, insisted their remarks had been misinterpreted.

However, the remarks were widely published in Europe and were seen by skeptical Europeans as a tacit admission that the United States overstated Iraq's weapons threat.

The Daily Express of London ran a report Friday on the statements by the two U.S. officials with the headline "Just Complete and Utter Lies."

"Claims that the world was lied to about the reasons for going to war in Iraq gathered pace yesterday as fresh doubts were cast on Britain and America's account of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction," the newspaper said.

Bush flew to Europe on Friday with stops in Poland, Russia and an economic summit with leaders of other industrialized democracies in Evian, France. U.S. officials hope past bitterness over Iraq won't get in the way of efforts to fight terrorism, AIDS, and famine, and to improve world trade.

However, the weapons comments reopened wounds from the strident debate ahead of the war.

In Germany, where the war was widely unpopular, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeiting newspaper said the comments showed America is losing the battle for credibility.

"The charge of deception is inescapable," the newspaper said.

Opposition parties in Denmark, whose government supported the war, demanded to know if Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen misled the public about Iraq's weapons.

"It was not what the Danish prime minister said when he advocated support for the war," said Jeppe Kofod, foreign affairs spokesman for the Social Democrats. "Those who went to war now have a big problem explaining it."

During his interview with Vanity Fair in early May, Wolfowitz cited several payoffs from the war, including removing the need for American forces in Saudi Arabia.

Those troops were sent to protect the desert kingdom against Saddam, whose forces invaded Kuwait in 1990. But their presence in the country that is home to Islam's holiest sites enraged many Muslims, including al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Within two weeks of the fall of Baghdad, the United States announced it was removing most of its 5,000 troops from Saudi Arabia.

"Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government," Wolfowitz said. "It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaeda."

Wolfowitz insisted in the interview, and in Singapore on Friday, that there had always been three major concerns.

"One was weapons of mass destruction, second was terrorism, and the third ... was the abuse of Iraqis by their own government," Wolfowitz said at the sidelines of the Asia Security Conference in Singapore.

"And in a sense there was a fourth overriding one, which was the connection between those first two, the connection between the weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. All three of those have been there, they've always been part of the rationale and I think it s been very clear."

Coalition forces' inability to find significant stocks of banned weapons has only fueled European skepticism over Washington's motives.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, said Friday he was convinced before and during the war that at least some Iraqi units had chemical weapons.

A team of about 1,400 experts from the United States, Britain and Australia will take over the weapons search from a smaller U.S. military team next month.

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, who leaves Monday for Baghdad to head the Iraq Survey Group, said his team will shift its focus away from areas identified as suspicious sites before the war to areas where documents, interviews with Iraqis and other new clues suggest biological or chemical weapons could be hidden.

Dayton, a top official in the Defense Intelligence Agency, said he did not know why no chemical or biological weapons have been found yet, but he remains convinced they will be.

"These things could have been taken and buried. They could have been transferred. They could have been destroyed," Dayton told reporters at the Pentagon. "That doesn't mean they weren't there in the first place."

The issue of Iraqi weapons is especially problematic for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, America's closest ally in the Iraq war. Blair insisted Friday that he was certain concrete evidence of banned weapons will be found.

"Have a little patience," he said in Warsaw, Poland. "I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will present the full evidence after we have investigated all the sites, after we've interviewed all the scientists and experts, and this will take place in the coming weeks and months."

Darth

It's plural -- not singular -- there are many and they are not memos ... they are official government minutes with Blair in attendance (which he admits) -- and they have been verified by NBC news.

The latest one broke this morning in the LA Times. There are too many to discuss randomly so you need to read them if you're interested in this issue beyond blaming it on Clinton.

The bottom line ... after reading these minutes -- it's quite clear that Blair and Bush cooked the intel to invade Iraq.

1700 troops and 100,000 Iraquis dead -- I'd say that's an impeachable offense.

The good part -- these minutes aren't going away. There aren't enough MJ's, blonds in Aruba, shark attacks, amber alerts and dog bites to push this off the front page now. It will take a 9/11 type attack to accomplish that feat ... so duck and cover.

Originally posted by Echo2
he recently-revealed, top-secret Downing Street Memo, dated July 23, 2002, which talks about a just-concluded meeting between U.K. and Administration leaders at the Bush ranch in Texas, said that the "intelligence and facts" to justify the Iraq invasion to the public were to be "fixed around the policy."

IOW, the pathological LIARS in the Bush Administration --as every sane human being on the planet with any knowledge of this farce was already aware-- just decided to make the shit up as they went along!!!.

As if THAT weren't bad enough, they are caught red handed plotting to LIE about it, and STILL the moronic Rightwing faction refuses to see it.

Incredible.

fantastic job echo 2. unfortunately, there are still many here, in this day and age of information, who choose to ignore factual evidence when it goes against their own personal belief of what they desire to be true.

There are also many who would prefer to dwell on the past rather than deal with the present. Regardless of whether it was right to go to war or not, the fact remains that we did invade Iraq and are there now. Endless discussions on Saddam's WMDs and whether Bush lied do little to help the current situation and, at this point, are far less worthwhile than talking about what can be done at the present.

Originally posted by Jester
There are also many who would prefer to dwell on the past rather than deal with the present. Regardless of whether it was right to go to war or not, the fact remains that we did invade Iraq and are there now. Endless discussions on Saddam's WMDs and whether Bush lied do little to help the current situation and, at this point, are far less worthwhile than talking about what can be done at the present.

A man shoots and kills my brother. He's dead, why bother to go after the guy that committed the crime, it won't change the fact that he is dead and we should be focusing on how to deal with our lifes in his absence rather than going after the law breaker.

Yep, that's a real smart attitude.

Originally posted by Jester
There are also many who would prefer to dwell on the past rather than deal with the present. Regardless of whether it was right to go to war or not, the fact remains that we did invade Iraq and are there now. Endless discussions on Saddam's WMDs and whether Bush lied do little to help the current situation and, at this point, are far less worthwhile than talking about what can be done at the present.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. What have we as a nation learned from this deception? Not much judging from the last national election. That is why it matters how we got into this quagmire.

Originally posted by Tapeworm
fantastic job echo 2. unfortunately, there are still many here, in this day and age of information, who choose to ignore factual evidence when it goes against their own personal belief of what they desire to be true.

Yup -- a great job by echo as usual ...

The many you mention are becoming fewer and fewer ...
Polling report has Bush at 42 -- the Pew poll has him at 43.

http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Quack, Quack

It should be much lower than that.

Originally posted by Echo2
A man shoots and kills my brother. He's dead, why bother to go after the guy that committed the crime, it won't change the fact that he is dead and we should be focusing on how to deal with our lifes in his absence rather than going after the law breaker.

Yep, that's a real smart attitude.

Let's just go along with the plan of the President's detractors in Congress. They want to, umm, they uh.... What was their plan again?

I think it's on their desk right under their Social Security plan.

There are times I really have to wonder about others here on these boards. You WOULD figure out sooner or later that in opposing this war on terror, they are, by default, supporting Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime. Those who are out to Get Bush say that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror or that Saddam wasn't a threat. I would view this particular idea with a great deal less suspicion if it weren't for the fact that Clinton went into Bosnia, which clearly wasn't a threat to the U.S., and the same "anti-war activists" that are now so vociferous about Iraq were silent about Bosnia/Kosovo.

Then there is thing about Bush and Co. secretly drawing up plans to invade Iraq. So? Saddam had some 14 U.N. resolutions hanging over his head calling on him to disarm, or else. Did Saddam have WMDs? We'll never know. Critical files detailing Saddam's WMD programs were destroyed in the year and a half run up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Saddam, being the sly some bitch that he is had all the time in the world to hide/destroy/disperse any WMDs he may or may not have had.

It's one of those things. The terrorists responsible for all the deaths and misery in Iraq know good and well that there is an element here in the U.S. and elsewhere that has been opposed to the war since the get go. If only they can hang on long enough for the U.S. to grow tired of fighting them, they will have won. THAT would tarnish our image before the world. The world would see that the U.S. doesn't have the will to stick to a particular course of action if the going gets tough.....

Originally posted by Echo2
A man shoots and kills my brother. He's dead, why bother to go after the guy that committed the crime, it won't change the fact that he is dead and we should be focusing on how to deal with our lifes in his absence rather than going after the law breaker.

Yep, that's a real smart attitude. It's quite a stretch to compare a war to a murder, but I get what you mean. My point is that one aspect of it gets debated to death while the other is largely ignored. Any discussion on Iraq inevitably centers around George Bush and becomes either a bashing or praising session on him. There are many other aspects to the war and the country of Iraq that are hardly ever discussed. Not everything has to be about George Bush; there are other fish that can be fried.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
You WOULD figure out sooner or later that in opposing this war on terror, they are, by default, supporting Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime.

In all fairness, it's quite possible to be in favor of a war on terrorism but think that the one currently in process is being done all wrong. There's more than one way to skin a terrorist.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
In all fairness, it's quite possible to be in favor of a war on terrorism but think that the one currently in process is being done all wrong. There's more than one way to skin a terrorist.
This could be totally true, Lionel, but tell me - have you seen a plan on their end, because I sure as hell haven't?

You and I both know the dems are isolationists by nature.

Not everything has to be about George Bush; there are other fish that can be fried.
No there aren't, I mean look at him, he's weird!

This could be totally true, Lionel, but tell me - have you seen a plan on their end, because I sure as hell haven't?
As long as you don't include me in that, you asked a while back and I gave you one.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
in opposing this war on terror, they are, by default, supporting Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime.

?!?

I have seen some bizarre allegations in my time, but this one truly takes the prize.

"Those who oppose the war are supporting bin Laden and Hussein and the Taliban regime"...................?!!?!?!?!?!

Somebody PLEASE tell me this imbecile is kidding.

Well gee freethinker,

I'm an imbecile, eh? Will then tell me, with you posting every single negative thing about the war in Iraq, with you citing Dick Durbin for comparing Gitmo to the Holocaust, with declaring the Iraq war immoral in spite of the fact that a ruthless dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens tell me, who benefits the most? Is it the U.S. or the terrorists who are hoping that the "peace" movement, here and abroad saps the will of the U.S. so that our mission in Iraq fails so they can reinstate yet another tyranical regime in the Middle East? Explain that one to me.

Originally posted by Blibblob
No there aren't, I mean look at him, he's weird! Oh come on now Blib, you know better than to pick on people just because they're different. :D

It's quite a stretch to compare a war to a murder, but I get what you mean. My point is that one aspect of it gets debated to death while the other is largely ignored. Any discussion on Iraq inevitably centers around George Bush and becomes either a bashing or praising session on him. There are many other aspects to the war and the country of Iraq that are hardly ever discussed. Not everything has to be about George Bush; there are other fish that can be fried. Bwahahahaaaaa...a stretch...gimmie a break. Yeah I guess its a little more like MASS MURDER...The point is this asshole got Americans killed because he wanted to. Why don't you go sign up for the military then tell me it doesn't matter that he lied... GW does not support our troops. He uses them to stuff the pockets of corporations and to try an improve his image. Funny how those here who "support the troops" have no problem with them getting killed for reasons other than protecting America (which is what they signed up for). How do you support the troops now and days? By needlessly throwing them into foreign countries without adaquate equipment or numbers, surrounded by people who want to kill them of course.

I also like that people in here entertain the notion that the US went into Iraq to free the Iraqis. Because you know, if Saddam could prove a negative (which is basically impossible) then he would be allowed to continue being a tyrannical dictator....ho hum.

There are times I really have to wonder about others here on these boards. You WOULD figure out sooner or later that in opposing this war on terror, they are, by default, supporting Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime. Bwahahahaaa...by default. If you don't like bananas, by default, you must like oranges....If you don't like drinking alcohol, by default, you must be straight edge...If you don't like making well reasoned arguments and rely solely on fallacies you must, by defualt, have your head up your ass...

BTW did anyone else notice how the "Libural Media" has been reporting none stop about the Downing Street Memo...me either...

Edit - Damn...where are those WMD?
http://www.musicforamerica.org/misc/media_files/bushjoke.mov

a little war time quid pro quo:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050617-1349-bn17protest.html

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Well gee freethinker,
Will then tell me, with you posting every single negative thing about the war in Iraq, ...

I have not even scratched the surface in regards to all the negative things about the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
with you citing Dick Durbin for comparing Gitmo to the Holocaust, ...

It is a lie, an outright lie, to state that Durbin compared Gitmo to the Holocaust.

It is also an outright lie to claim that Durbin compares our entire military to Pol Pot or the Nazis.

Durbin said that if a person were to hear of a prisoner being subjected to extremes of temperature while chained naked to a tile floor, for over 24 hours, in the fetal position, it would inevitably bring thoughts of what the Nazis or Pol Pot or the Rusian gulags did.

Which is true.

It is abominable that the USA is treating prisoners that way....and it is abominable that you and other rightwing apologists make endless goddamned excuses for it.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
with declaring the Iraq war immoral in spite of the fact that a ruthless dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens...

If this country and its government were EVER worried in the slightest over the "moraiity" of Hussein killing people, it would not have authorized the sale to him, by US Corporattions, of the precursors for chemical and biological weaponry that he did the killing WITH!.



Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
tell me, who benefits the most?...

The Big Oil and Big Defense interests.

Halliburton.

General Dynamics.

Boeing.

Lockheed Martin.

McDonnell Douglas.

Northrop Grumman.

Bush. Cheney. Numerous other assorted fascists.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Is it the U.S. or the terrorists who are hoping that the "peace" movement, here and abroad saps the will of the U.S. so that our mission in Iraq fails so they can reinstate yet another tyranical regime in the Middle East? Explain that one to me.

Those people in this country who oppose the war on terror, contrary to the falsehoods (and I believe you KNOW they are false) you are pushing, do not want troops to be killed.

The protestors are not doing what they do so that **another tyranical regime** can take over in the Middle East.

They simply want the fighting to end, the troops to stop dying for nothing, and for us to find better ways of solving our problems with other countries than trying to annihiltate them and take control of their oil.