Who will pay for the fake war of fake president Chimpers?
Illegally Financing The WMD Hoax
""Of course, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid the bill for daddy's war. But even on that count, many neo-cons were certain that a grateful Iraq - under American administration - would be more than happy to reimburse the United States on some kind of 'oil-for-invasion' program."
"Iraq had no stockpile, no biological agents, no chemical feedstocks, no plants to manufacture them and no delivery systems to fire them. Saddam was no threat to us and had no weapons of mass destruction to pass to terrorists. Brushing the UN inspectors aside in order to go to war on false intelligence was a colossal blunder."
-- Robin Cook, the British Foreign Minister who resigned to protest the Iraq war
No WMDs. No 9/11 link. No imminent threat. No intelligence failure. Just well orchestrated lies to market a war based on manufactured intelligence.
How many "gotcha" articles have you read lately? Unless you've spent the last year on Gilligan's island - it should now be clear that Bush lied. Unfortunately, a lot of people who 'get it' are missing the point. The question is no longer whether Bush lied but so what if he did. It's no longer matter of whether we should trust the president. Rather, the emphasis should be on how Bush dodged his WMD credibility problem and whether he used public funds in the process.
Charitable folks are still inclined to believe that Bush lied only to protect the great unwashed from dealing with imperial realities. As Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, would say 'There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.'
Listen up, children. If the President is guilty of anything - it is faulty judgment. He just made a bad call based on his best instincts and faulty risk/reward calculations tabulated by the CIA. He meant no harm to the empire and he is in no position to turn back the clock.
That above line of reasoning depends entirely on the proposition that there was an 'intelligence failure' - not an 'intelligence fix'. That proposition was blown out of the water with the recent publication of a pre-invasion British memo that clearly establishes that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
This could be the start of a very messy affair. Rep. John Conyers and 87 other members of Congress are already demanding answers from the White House. If this story takes its natural course, we are about to discover that Bush not only lied about the WMDs, not only fixed intelligence but also misappropriated public funds to cover up his lie and pass it off as an 'intelligence failure'. In the process, revelations of great import are going to become part of the public record. Get ready for some startling headlines about the role of the mass media in both fixing intelligence and the subsequent cover-up. Prepare yourself for a long parade of complicit politicians from both major parties knee deep in the muck of bamboozling the American people. Bush's conspiracy was not the work of one man or one party or one paper. This was a family affair.
The makings of this conspiracy started with a faith based foreign policy outlook that projected a short 'cake walk' in Iraq followed by a triumphant victory parade that would drown out any further discussion of the phantom WMD stockpiles. Invading Iraq was expected to be a brief and inexpensive project in terms of both blood and treasure. The architects of the war were certain that the outcome would dazzle all the cynics who doubted the invincibility of the indispensable nation."
Link to report: http://www.rense.com/general65/wmd.htm
""Of course, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid the bill for daddy's war. But even on that count, many neo-cons were certain that a grateful Iraq - under American administration - would be more than happy to reimburse the United States on some kind of 'oil-for-invasion' program."
"Iraq had no stockpile, no biological agents, no chemical feedstocks, no plants to manufacture them and no delivery systems to fire them. Saddam was no threat to us and had no weapons of mass destruction to pass to terrorists. Brushing the UN inspectors aside in order to go to war on false intelligence was a colossal blunder."
-- Robin Cook, the British Foreign Minister who resigned to protest the Iraq war
No WMDs. No 9/11 link. No imminent threat. No intelligence failure. Just well orchestrated lies to market a war based on manufactured intelligence.
How many "gotcha" articles have you read lately? Unless you've spent the last year on Gilligan's island - it should now be clear that Bush lied. Unfortunately, a lot of people who 'get it' are missing the point. The question is no longer whether Bush lied but so what if he did. It's no longer matter of whether we should trust the president. Rather, the emphasis should be on how Bush dodged his WMD credibility problem and whether he used public funds in the process.
Charitable folks are still inclined to believe that Bush lied only to protect the great unwashed from dealing with imperial realities. As Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, would say 'There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.'
Listen up, children. If the President is guilty of anything - it is faulty judgment. He just made a bad call based on his best instincts and faulty risk/reward calculations tabulated by the CIA. He meant no harm to the empire and he is in no position to turn back the clock.
That above line of reasoning depends entirely on the proposition that there was an 'intelligence failure' - not an 'intelligence fix'. That proposition was blown out of the water with the recent publication of a pre-invasion British memo that clearly establishes that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
This could be the start of a very messy affair. Rep. John Conyers and 87 other members of Congress are already demanding answers from the White House. If this story takes its natural course, we are about to discover that Bush not only lied about the WMDs, not only fixed intelligence but also misappropriated public funds to cover up his lie and pass it off as an 'intelligence failure'. In the process, revelations of great import are going to become part of the public record. Get ready for some startling headlines about the role of the mass media in both fixing intelligence and the subsequent cover-up. Prepare yourself for a long parade of complicit politicians from both major parties knee deep in the muck of bamboozling the American people. Bush's conspiracy was not the work of one man or one party or one paper. This was a family affair.
The makings of this conspiracy started with a faith based foreign policy outlook that projected a short 'cake walk' in Iraq followed by a triumphant victory parade that would drown out any further discussion of the phantom WMD stockpiles. Invading Iraq was expected to be a brief and inexpensive project in terms of both blood and treasure. The architects of the war were certain that the outcome would dazzle all the cynics who doubted the invincibility of the indispensable nation."
Link to report: http://www.rense.com/general65/wmd.htm
posted by A. J. Franklin @ 22:10
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home