This is a great stuff and needs to be formated into a Truth Paper ASAP. I was thinking it needed one more section though, for example we have.
Title: Understanding the Iraq War
Section 1: Is PNAC the key to understanding the Bush Administration?
etc. etc.
Section 2: The Lies that got us there.
a) : Iraq/ Al-qaeda:: Have
b) WMD:: Have
d) Oil:: Think we may need?
Quick Conclusion::
Fellow American, do you know what the Project for a New American Century Is?
--You should. It may be the key to understanding the current administration.
Several high-ranking members of the Bush Administration are members of the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative think tank that advocates increasing use of military force to preserve the U.S.'s preeminent position in the world, preventing the rise of a powerful rival, and shaping "the international security order" to suit American interests. The organization outlined its position and ambitions in "Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," a document written before the 2000 election. The authors talked about the militarization of space, preventing growth of the power of numerous countries, "regime change" in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and others, and the use of biological warfare as a political tool. However, the authors stated that a shift to such tactics could not take place in America “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.” It is not difficult to see how 9/11 may have filled this role in the authors’ minds, and how these ideas may have been important in shaping the policies of the Bush Administration.
Before “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was published, on January 26, 1998, the PNAC published a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq partly because Saddam Hussein was a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” Ten of the eighteen signatories later joined the Bush Administration. Signing this letter and “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” are names like Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Robert Zoellick, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld, all of whom have been placed in high positions by the Bush Administration.
Is this blatantly imperialistic philosophy guiding the Bush Administration’s policy? Are you comfortable with that possibility?
Verify these facts, and read "Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and the letter to President Clinton at the PNAC website: www.newamericancentury.org
Researched through the Center for Grassroots Oversight website,
cooperativeresearch.org.
The facts about false war justification #1: Iraq and al-Qaeda
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to press CIA Director George Tenet to produce a customary National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. When it was released on October 1, 2002, it was not conclusive about Iraqi WMDs or terror ties, and said that “specific information” was lacking about Saddam’s WMDs, and that he was unlikely to use them or release them to terrorists unless attacked. However, the Bush Administration continued to profess its certainty of the threat, and the few members of Congress who read the classified version of the document were not able to discuss their misgivings publicly because of its restricted status. (New York Times 10/3/04, Washington Post 8/10/03, PBS Frontline 1/20/06, Isikoff and Corn, 2006, pp. 133-134, 137)
In January 2003, the British intelligence defense staff agency concluded in a classified study sent to Tony Blair that Osama bin Laden was in “ideological conflict” with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and that any contact between them that had taken place foundered due to their incompatibility. (BBC, 2/5/03)
Some of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks’ report on 9/11 was not released until July 24, 2003, after the Iraq invasion. This part of the report showed that U.S. intelligence had no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. Senator Max Cleland said that the White House had intentionally delayed the release of the material because it would have undermined the case for war. (UPI, 7/25/03)
In July 2004, the newly-published 9/11 Commission Report said that there was “no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” Also, contacts between the two “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.” (New York Times, 7/12/04)
On September 21, 2001, President Bush received a presidential daily briefing that he had requested, which said that the intelligence community had found no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks or to al-Qaeda. The existence of this briefing was not disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee until summer of 2004, but even then the Bush Administration refused to reveal it, through the end of 2005. (MSNBC, 11/22/05, National Journal, 11/22/05)
Researched through the Center for Grassroots Oversight website, cooperativeresearch.org.
The facts about false war justification #2: The alleged WMDs
UNSCOM weapons inspectors oversaw the destruction of massive quantities of Iraqi chemical munitions and missiles during the 1990s, to the extent that UNSCOM Chief Inspector Scott Ritter estimated only a small portion of Iraq's weapons were left unaccounted for. (United Nations Special Commission, 1/29/1998; Newsday, 7/30/2002)
Defense Secretary William Cohen said in January 2001 that the sanctions on Iraq had succeeded in preventing military growth in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein's forces were in a state where they could not pose a threat to his neighbors.(US Department of Defense, 1/10/2001)
Colin Powell said in February 2001 that the allies' strategy in the Middle East had been successful, and that Iraq didn't have the capability to attack its neighbors that it had had at the time of the Gulf War. (US Department of State, 2/20/2001)
Dick Cheney himself said just after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was bottled-up at that point and the focus was on al-Qaeda. (Meet the Press, 9/16/2001)
When the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was completed and released on October 1, 2002, it acknowledged uncertainty about its sources of information tying Iraq to al-Qaeda, and said that the United States lacked "specific information" on Iraq's WMDs and that Saddam would likely only use WMDs or give them to terrorists if attack by the U.S. were imminent. However, the Bush Administration continued to indicate no uncertainty in their public statements. Just one week later in a televised speech, Bush will say that Iraq could decide on any given day to give a biological or chemical weapon to terrorists. (Central Intelligence Agency, 10/1/2002; Washington Post, 6/22/2003; Agence France-Presse, 11/30/2003)
In December of 2002, UNSCOM Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix complained that U.S. and British governments were not providing him with the intelligence needed to help him find alleged WMDs, saying "We get some (intelligence), but we don’t get all we need.” (Independent, 12/21/2002)
In February 2003, UNMOVIC and IAEA officials Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei informed the U.N. that after 400 inspections at over 300 sites in Iraq, they had found no evidence that Iraq had WMDs or programs to develop them. (United Nations, 2/14/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003; Guardian, 2/14/2003; Inter Press Service, 2/15/2003)
El Baradei's team said that Iraqi officials had provided immediate access to all sites the team had sought to examine and that “We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq.” (United Nations, 2/14/2003; International Atomic Energy Agency, 2/14/2003; Financial Times, 2/14/2003)
Quarterly reports by the two in March contained the same message.(United Nations, 3/7/2003)
|