FLAIT: Logic Proves War is Based on Lies<b><font color=red>*</font></b>

August 20, 2005

Logic Proves War is Based on Lies*

Originally Posted: Aug. 2004
Final Revision/Posting: June 2005

Even though Bush and the whole world knew - or thought they knew - that Iraq had WMDs, it was only assumed. But not only does logic prove it was a senseless war to begin with, it also proves there was no "imminent threat" - which Bush did know - and the war was based on nothing but lies. Here's proof:

Warning: The following is extremely dangerous to stubborn, arrogant, belligerent, brainwashed Republicans because it proves them wrong.

1. Germany invades Europe twice in the 20th century; Communists move into SE Asia, the Soviets invade Afghanistan; Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait.

Americans were angry at such unprovoked invasions and said things like: "Why are they doing this?" "What do they want?" "Don't they want peace?" "(Hitler/Hussein etc.) is an egomaniacal megalomaniac war monger."

They were the bad guys.

So why shouldn't we be perceived as the bad guys in Iraq? Why shouldn't we be hated as much as we hated Iraq when they invaded Kuwait? And why shouldn't George Bush be thought of as an "egomaniacal megalomaniac war monger?"

2. Has there ever been a time in history when one country invaded another - in a volatile part of the world where the invading country was already disliked - and it worked out well?

And what has "occupation" done for Israel in the territory's, the Russians in Chechnya, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the British in Northern Ireland and the British in the American Colony's?

And how well did the British occupation of Iraq go after they took Baghdad in 1917?

"Learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it." Unfortunately, Bush never heard that quote.

Somehow "no more Vietnams" also got past him.

3. If invading Iraq was justified because of a "threat," then would it have been alright for Iraq or Iran to invade Israel since they really do have "WMDs" (nuclear weapons) and is a real threat to them (unlike the made up "threat" that Iraq posed to us and/or Israel)? What about Israel invading them? Would that have been justified? What about North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, and Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq? Would it be justifiable for all of them to invade THEIR "imminent threat?" And they're all NEIGHBORS! What makes us so special that allows us to invade our "imminent threat" - 6,000 miles away?

4. The White House was explicit, "unequivocal" and not at all ambiguous about the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed. There was "no doubt" that "vast quantities" - "thousands of tons" in fact - of WMD's were there and they even "knew where they were." They also spoke of the possibility of "mushroom clouds" (when Clinton was President, Rush Limbaugh shouted everyday that "words mean things!" How come words don't "mean things" when a Republican President and Administration says them?).

However, what the White House failed to say, was that their "intelligence" was based on a document that turned out to be a forgery, on the word of Ahmad Chalabi, a notorious liar, thief and con man who is now considered to have been a double agent spying for Iran (incredibly, not only was he installed as one of Iraq's deputy Prime Ministers, but was appointed acting oil minister as well), and on the word of an informant ("Curveball") that the CIA knew to be "crazy," "a fabricator," "an alcoholic," and unreliable (it's a slap in the face to every soldier that was sent to Iraq on the basis of such "evidence").

Even Republican Sen. Pat Roberts admitted last year that if the Senate had known how weak the evidence was, the war resolution wouldn't have passed.

5. According to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," CIA director George Tenet presented Iraq's "case for WMDs" to President Bush.

The presentation was such a flop that even Bush was skeptical and asked, "is this the best we got?" But Tenet went on to assure Bush that it was a "slam dunk case." But that's not the point.

What's striking, is WHEN this briefing took place - December 2002 - almost a year AFTER Bush started to beat the war drums.

So let me see if I have this straight:

In early 2002, Bush pulled troops and resources out of Afghanistan (yea, really) that were pursuing al-Quaeda and sends them to the Mid-East. Then during the spring and summer, he tries to build public support for the war.

In September and October Bush goes to the UN, gets inspectors into Iraq, has Congress "debate" and vote on the war resolution (just prior to the elections, thus turning out brave soldiers into political poker chips), and all the while, massing 150,000 troops in the region.

And THEN he gets briefed on Iraqi WMDs? What kind of half-assed thinking is that?

That would be like bragging you won the lottery, maxing out your credit cards because you won the lottery, THEN buying a ticket expecting to win the lottery!

But wait, there's more!

Just weeks before the war started, Rumsfeld asked Turkey if we could send troops there so they can attack Iraq from the north but was turned down (if we had this second front, this massive insurgency in the "Sunni triangle" may not be happening).

So let me see if I have this straight:

Bush spends months telling the world there's a threat, prepares for an invasion, "cocks the gun," THEN gets briefed to see if Iraq actually had WMDs on the assumption they had them (a convenient pretext for war), THEN trys to add a major component to the war plan at the last minute, and THEN trys to find a reason for the war when the WMDs fail to turn up.

Who does things like that?! Bush did EVERYTHING backwards!

The way it's supposed to work, is that the CIA, NSC or another intelligence agency bursts into the Oval Office and hands the President new, solid, credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is brewing some nasty chemicals (which didn't happen).

At that point, the President (who hopefully has half a brain) would keep it quiet until he came up with a plan of action and implemented it. Most likely secret air strikes, which is exactly what Israel did in 1981. Because...

6. What kind of fool gives an arch enemy, who has "thousands of tons" of WMDs all set to fire within "45 minutes," a years warning that we're going to invade his country?

In 1962 can you imagine President Kennedy giving the Soviets a years warning that we're going to invade Cuba?

If that doesn't prove how bogus this "imminent threat" was, nothing will. Because if Saddam Hussein was really producing some nasty WMDs, you can be certain they would have been taken out by air strikes.

And secret air strikes come at a fraction of the extremely high risks, costs, lives (to Iraqi's as well as Americans), dollars and consequences of an invasion; especially when 150,000 invading troops provide the perfect target to a supposedly well-armed dictator that has nothing to lose.

So why invade when it's unnecessary, risky and possibly catastrophic?

6B. June 2007 insert, mostly from this
Originally Posted: Aug. 2004
Final Revision/Posting: June 2005

Even though Bush and the whole world knew - or thought they knew - that Iraq had WMDs, it was only assumed. But not only does logic prove it was a senseless war to begin with, it also proves there was no "imminent threat" - which Bush did know - and the war was based on nothing but lies. Here's proof:

Warning: The following is extremely dangerous to stubborn, arrogant, belligerent, brainwashed Republicans because it proves them wrong.

1. Germany invades Europe twice in the 20th century; Communists move into SE Asia, the Soviets invade Afghanistan; Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait.

Americans were angry at such unprovoked invasions and said things like: "Why are they doing this?" "What do they want?" "Don't they want peace?" "(Hitler/Hussein etc.) is an egomaniacal megalomaniac war monger."

They were the bad guys.

So why shouldn't we be perceived as the bad guys in Iraq? Why shouldn't we be hated as much as we hated Iraq when they invaded Kuwait? And why shouldn't George Bush be thought of as an "egomaniacal megalomaniac war monger?"

2. Has there ever been a time in history when one country invaded another - in a volatile part of the world where the invading country was already disliked - and it worked out well?

And what has "occupation" done for Israel in the territory's, the Russians in Chechnya, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the British in Northern Ireland and the British in the American Colony's?

And how well did the British occupation of Iraq go after they took Baghdad in 1917?

"Learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it." Unfortunately, Bush never heard that quote.

Somehow "no more Vietnams" also got past him.

3. If invading Iraq was justified because of a "threat," then would it have been alright for Iraq or Iran to invade Israel since they really do have "WMDs" (nuclear weapons) and is a real threat to them (unlike the made up "threat" that Iraq posed to us and/or Israel)? What about Israel invading them? Would that have been justified? What about North and South Korea, India and Pakistan, and Turkey and the Kurds in northern Iraq? Would it be justifiable for all of them to invade THEIR "imminent threat?" And they're all NEIGHBORS! What makes us so special that allows us to invade our "imminent threat" - 6,000 miles away?

4. The White House was explicit, "unequivocal" and not at all ambiguous about the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed. There was "no doubt" that "vast quantities" - "thousands of tons" in fact - of WMD's were there and they even "knew where they were." They also spoke of the possibility of "mushroom clouds" (when Clinton was President, Rush Limbaugh shouted everyday that "words mean things!" How come words don't "mean things" when a Republican President and Administration says them?).

However, what the White House failed to say, was that their "intelligence" was based on a document that turned out to be a forgery, on the word of Ahmad Chalabi, a notorious liar, thief and con man who is now considered to have been a double agent spying for Iran (incredibly, not only was he installed as one of Iraq's deputy Prime Ministers, but was appointed acting oil minister as well), and on the word of an informant ("Curveball") that the CIA knew to be "crazy," "a fabricator," "an alcoholic," and unreliable (it's a slap in the face to every soldier that was sent to Iraq on the basis of such "evidence").

Even Republican Sen. Pat Roberts admitted last year that if the Senate had known how weak the evidence was, the war resolution wouldn't have passed.

5. According to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," CIA director George Tenet presented Iraq's "case for WMDs" to President Bush.

The presentation was such a flop that even Bush was skeptical and asked, "is this the best we got?" But Tenet went on to assure Bush that it was a "slam dunk case." But that's not the point.

What's striking, is WHEN this briefing took place - December 2002 - almost a year AFTER Bush started to beat the war drums.

So let me see if I have this straight:

In early 2002, Bush pulled troops and resources out of Afghanistan (yea, really) that were pursuing al-Quaeda and sends them to the Mid-East. Then during the spring and summer, he tries to build public support for the war.

No, no, no and yes.

So why would he risk all that by attacking us? He knew we'd invade and topple his regime.

So Hussein had too much too lose by attacking us; unlike al-Qaeda, who has absolutely nothing to lose. They don't have a regime to protect or a country to defend and want to die for their cause. All Osama bin Laden needs is an endless supply of new recruits, which this silly war is doing.

Besides, with the no-fly zones, satellite intelligence and UN Sanctions, Hussein was in his box right where we could keep an eye on him. And getting word to Baghdad, privately, making it perfectly clear that any attack from him, directly or indirectly, would result in his regimes demise, as well as his own, would have been more then enough to keep him there.

September 2007 insert: So the best, most powerful, most compassionate, and supposedly the smartest country in the world - led by a "pro-life" leader - turned to war, not its intellect nor its global resources, to defend itself against an impotent pipsquek 6,000 miles away...that was already in a box. What does that tell you about Bush's judgment, logic, rationale and level of intelligence (or lack thereof)?

And what does it say about Bill Clinton's judgment, logic, rationale and level of intelligence when he kept Hussein in his box without an invasion?

And to think that conservatives roll their eyes at liberals.

7. If Bush really didn't know the information he was getting about Iraq's WMDs was bogus, why isn't he angry that he started a war that wasn't necessary? Why didn't he fire anyone? Why did he give George Tenet a medal? And why has he tried so hard to avoid legitimate investigations that would tell us why he was given information that couldn't have been more wrong (I could ask the same questions about the sloppy intelligence that failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Anyone see a pattern here?)?

If I was President and invaded Iraq based on information that couldn't have been more wrong, I wouldn't be spinning myself into knots trying to justify a senseless war that has turned into a colossal disaster. I'd be extremely angry and would have demanded a full investigation to see how I was misled so badly. Our troops in Iraq deserve that much.

As far as the Silverman-Robb Commission is concerned, it was a complete waste of time.

Their final report declared that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" even though the White House IGNORED information from the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY that contradicted what Bush was saying.

But what do you expect? Bush appointed the members to the commission, they only had a handful of qualified weapons experts, they didn't have subpoena power, and they didn't interview Bush or Cheney.

And most important, the scope of their "investigation" was severely limited (how convenient). So determining WHY we went to war on the basis of such unreliable evidence wasn't even part of their investigation!

Oh, did I say that Bush appointed its members?

The CIA conducted their own investigation into Iraqi WMD intelligence last year, but the final report was suppressed by the White House.

8. Whatever Saddam Hussein had after 9/11 he had before 9/11. So if he was SUCH a threat that warranted an invasion, why did Bush wait until 2002 to call for it?

9. In Feb. 2001 Colin Powell said: "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to WMDs. He is unable to project (even!) conventional power against his neighbors" ("Words mean things!").

So how does Iraq go from that to "thousands of tons" of WMDs in less than 18 months... while under UN sanctions...while we were watching them like a hawk?

10. If the war is justified, why did Republicans (and FOX News) treat the slightest hint of Iraqi WMD as if it's the 4th of July and New Years Eve combined?

The fact that Bush and his brainwashed supporters are trying SO hard to justify the war ALL the time proves they realize they're on thin ice; because if the war was truly justified - like Afghanistan - then they wouldn't have to work so hard to prove it.

11. Why is Bush jumping from one reason to another to justify the war?

There was only one reason Bush could have given for this war: WMD. Because without them, and the "imminent threat" they posed, there's absolutely no reason to invade and Bush wouldn't have gotten the political or public support he needed.

So when the WMD's failed to turn up immediately after invading, the White House tried to spin it by saying they were moved, buried or hidden. But how the hell do you move, bury or hide "thousands of tons" of anything, let alone highly toxic chemicals...that were set up and ready to be fired within "45 minutes"...practically overnight...without us knowing about it when our satellites where watching every inch of Iraq 24/7, in the weeks and months prior to the invasion?...

So when the wars only rational proved to be a big lie, Bush had to shift gears to justify what turned out to be a monumental disaster. And that's when it became about "regime change." After that it was about 9/11, then it was about the "mass graves" and now it's about "democracy."

Let's take these one at a time:

"Regime Change" - Well, let's see what it's cost to change it: Over 1600 American lives (so far), over 10,000 Americans wounded (so far), tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi casualties (so far) - imagine what these numbers would be if Bush didn't "err on the side of life" - over $200 billion (so far), Iraq's infrastructure is destroyed, disease is on the rise, oil production is on the decline (because the fields and pipelines are coming under repeated attacks), insurgents control some areas and always will, the main road from the Green Zone to the Airport is the most dangerous in the world, civil war could break out (at least Iraq was stable under Hussain), our military is stretched dangerously thin, we're going to have troops in Iraq for between three years and forever stretching them that much more, the future "government" could turn out to be an unstable Islamic Theocracy with ties to Iran - making Iraq more of a threat to us then it was before the war - and the invasion has done wonders for terrorist recruitment and fund raising, while it's had the opposite effect on our own military recruitment (this will obviously have long term ramifications).

And al-Quaeda (remember them?) has reorganized worldwide because we diverted from that war to go on this wild goose chase (great going Mr. President).

That's a mighty steep price to pay for "changing a regime" that wasn't a threat at all; especially when Saddam Hussein could have been contained, regardless of what he had, and contrary to what Bush said.

9/11 - Bush never said Iraq was behind 9/11. But don't you think if Iraq really did have something to do with 9/11, that would have been THE REASON to invade? Just like Afghanistan?

But Bush used the public's misconception that they were involved in 9/11 to keep support for the war high (and Republicans called Clinton "slick"). It wasn't until Sept. 2003 when Bush was forced to admit there was no connection.

And if Bush and Cheney had evidence that Mohammed Atta did meet with an Iraqi agent - as if that alone would justify an invasion - why didn't they present that evidence to the 9/11 Commission when they appeared before them? Heck, since they weren't under oath and no formal transcript of their testimony was taken, they could have made up whatever evidence they needed.

"The mass graves" - I'm touched by such compassion (although when Democrats wanted to help the suffering around the world, Republicans always blasted them as "bleeding heart liberals"). But where's the compassion for all the people being tortured and killed in North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia (oops, they're our friends), Iran, and Cuba? And how come we didn't hear a peep out of the GOP when Clinton sat on his hands while 800,000 Rwandans were being hacked to death in 1994?

All of a sudden the Republicans give a hoot about Iraqi's? Since when have Republicans given a hoot about anyone?

Besides, with all the innocent Iraqi deaths, Bush is creating his own mass graves!

"Democracy" - I'm touched to hear Bush and the GOP talk about how wonderful it is for Iraqi's to be able vote in a free election (I only wished they cared half as much when Americans are disenfranchised). But since when have our brave soldiers been willing to die for Iraqi's (anyone who compares Iraq to WWII will be showing their ignorance and lack of intellect)?

Bush is like the guy who gets stuck in traffic, takes a short cut, and gets so lost that he has no choice but to keep going and find another way out. And he backed into this latest rational for the war only because of his arrogant incompetence.

So don't kid yourself. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, "mass graves," "regime change," 9/11 or bringing democracy to the country. And it had little to do with oil or Halliburton. At least not directly. This war was about arrogance. Nothing more and nothing less.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and Feith are so arrogant and so haughty that they assumed Iraq would be "easy" and taking out Saddam Hussein would give Bush the "Ronald Reagan" like legacy he wanted. And since they know everything, are never wrong, and never make mistakes, no one was going to tell them otherwise - the hell with the wars costs, its aftermath or its consequences.

If arrogance was dirt, this White House would be the biggest mountain in the world.

12. Case closed.

I'd like to invite open minded Republicans (a contradictory term if I ever heard one) to remove that leash the GOP attached to their noses and check out this article.

But they won't because they're afraid they'll be proven wrong.

And besides, ridiculing "libs" and passing it off as "liberal propaganda" is much easier then enlightening yourself with the facts and learning something.

If all this is not enough...

13. "The smoking gun" - On May 1, 2005 the Times of London published the minutes of a meeting Tony Blair had in July 2002 with his Defense Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney General and Intelligence Chief regarding consultations they were having with Bush about Iraq.

The meeting - four months before the inspectors were sent to Iraq - centered around the fact that military action was "inevitable" because Bush and Blair had already made up their minds to invade even though they knew the case for war was "thin."

"(Bush) wanted to remove Saddam through military action." And the war would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" because "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy..."

The British Attorney General's warnings that the war was unjust, illegal and immoral, went ignored by Blair.

Conclusion:

Logic, as well as the facts, proves that Bush was going to invade Iraq, no matter what. And he lied, exaggerated and misled the country into it.

Unfortunately, the war has been such a colossal disaster - the lives, the limbs, the dollars, the chaos - that we'll be paying a dear price for it, in a number of ways, for decades to come. But none of that matters because Bush knew he had a base of support that would believe the world was flat if he said so.

So he conned his mindless and gullible Republican constituency with nothing but spin - and each one a blatant hypocrite. Because if this disaster in Iraq was all Clinton's doing...ah misdoing, the GOP would have not only impeached him a long time ago, but would have looked into prosecuting him criminally so they could throw him in jail. And rightfully so.

September 2007 insert: More proof here.

Another September 2007 insert: How much more freakin' proof do you need?

June 2008 insert: Still more, here.

August 2008 insert: And more, here.

+/- show/hide this post

# posted by Steve