Bush's Iraqi War Cover-Up

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
"As the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman during the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and the run-up to the Iraq war, Sen. Bob Graham tried to expose what he came to believe were national security coverups and manipulations by the Bush administration. But he discovered that it was hard to reveal a coverup playing by the rules. Much of the evidence the Florida Democrat needed to buttress his arguments was being locked away, he found, under the veil of politically motivated classification.

Now, as he prepares to retire after 18 years in the Senate, the normally cautious former governor of Florida is unleashing himself in a new book, "Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia and the Failure of America's War on Terror."

In his book, Graham asserts that the White House blocked investigations into Saudi Arabian government support for the 9/11 plot, in part because of the Bush family's close ties to the Saudi royal family and wealthy Saudis like the bin Ladens. Behind the White House's insistence on classifying 27 pages detailing the Saudi links in a report issued by a joint House-Senate intelligence panel co-chaired by Graham in 2002 lay the desire to hide the administration's deficiencies and protect its Saudi allies, according to Graham.

Graham's allegations -- supported by the Republican vice chairman of the House-Senate 9/11 investigation, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, but not his co-chairman, Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's nominee to become director of the CIA -- are not new. But his book states them more forcefully than before, even as Graham adds new insight into Bush's decision to invade Iraq, made apparently well before the president asserted he had exhausted all options.

In February 2002, Graham writes, Gen. Tommy Franks, then conducting the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and later to speak in prime time on behalf of Bush's candidacy at the Republican National Convention in New York), pulled the senator aside to explain that important resources in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, such as Predator drones, were being quietly redeployed to Iraq. "He told me that the decision to go to war in Iraq had been made at least 14 months before we actually went into Iraq, long before there was authorization from Congress and long before the United Nations was sought out for a resolution of support," Graham tells Salon.

Graham voted against the congressional war resolution authorizing force to topple Saddam Hussein. In 2003 he briefly ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, arguing that Bush had diverted resources from the hunt for America's real enemies with his joy ride in Iraq. (Graham dropped out before the primaries.)

Graham's book is being embraced by the John Kerry campaign, which arranged for him to discuss his conclusions with reporters in a conference call Tuesday. Dozens of journalists called in. This past Sunday, Graham appeared on "Meet the Press," and afterward Kerry issued a statement: "These are serious allegations being made by a well-respected and informed leader. If the White House and the FBI did in fact block an investigation into the ties between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers, then this would be a massive abuse of power."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham/index.html

 
Still can't get past the fact we did invade?

Still trying to argue we shouldn't have invaded?

That issue is done.

Wake up.

Or just conceed you make these posts for only the most partisan of reasons.

CTL
 
I made the post because it's news. And some people like to keep an open mind, and to those I'm offering more reasons to vote Bush out of office.

I realize that we have already invaded Iraq. Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.
 
Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.

And what is the "political price" for doing the right thing?
 
[quote name='Scrubking'] Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.

And what is the "political price" for doing the right thing?[/quote]

Show me the evidence that invading Iraq was the "right thing." Thousands of soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and what have we gotten out of it? How is the world a better or safer place?
 
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Scrubking'] Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.

And what is the "political price" for doing the right thing?[/quote]

Show me the evidence that invading Iraq was the "right thing." Thousands of soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and what have we gotten out of it? How is the world a better or safer place?[/quote]

I'd love to see you back up your numbers.

They are absurdly inflated.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Scrubking'] Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.

And what is the "political price" for doing the right thing?[/quote]

Show me the evidence that invading Iraq was the "right thing." Thousands of soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and what have we gotten out of it? How is the world a better or safer place?[/quote]

I'd love to see you back up your numbers.

They are absurdly inflated.

CTL[/quote]

You got me. I was writing on the fly, and blew out the wounded numbers. The figures, as of Wednesday afternoon, were 1,004 American dead and 6,497 wounded.

That said, I repeat:

Show me the evidence that invading Iraq was the right thing. Explain to me as you would explain to the families of the dead and maimed why their sacrifices were necessary. How is the United States made safer by the war in Iraq?
 
BUMP while I wait for some right-winger to properly answer my question of a couple of days ago:

Show me the evidence that invading Iraq was the right thing. Explain to me as you would explain to the families of the dead and maimed why their sacrifices were necessary. How is the United States made safer by the war in Iraq?
 
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Scrubking'] Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.

And what is the "political price" for doing the right thing?[/quote]

Show me the evidence that invading Iraq was the "right thing." Thousands of soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and what have we gotten out of it? How is the world a better or safer place?[/quote]

I'd love to see you back up your numbers.

They are absurdly inflated.

CTL[/quote]

On the whole, the analysis was actually pretty accurate to be made on the fly. Well, the inaccuracies are as follows:
"Thousands of soldiers dead" - only 1,000. See, that's practically nothing! That's 1,000 people whose lives have been ended by the war - assuming that they all had a family of 4 and only had 2 friends, and none of them had children or wives, that's only about 6,000 people whose lives have been permanently changed by the war.
Well, it's gonna take alot more than 6,000 lives ruined by a war conducted under false pretenses to get me not to vote Bush-Cheney!

The Guardian reports that, as of April, 2004, 3,864 troops have been injured and the number is rising dramatically.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4013476,00.html

And as far as civilians, yes, tens of thousands have been killed. Conservative estimates are well over 11,000.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

(Edit: changed it to make it sound better)
 
[quote name='Scrubking'] Now it's time for Bush to pay the political price for doing it.

And what is the "political price" for doing the right thing?[/quote]

I hear Elbe is lovely this time of year...
 
[quote name='dennis_t']You got me. I was writing on the fly, and blew out the wounded numbers. The figures, as of Wednesday afternoon, were 1,004 American dead and 6,497 wounded.[/quote]

Actually, the White House is masking the numbers.
1,004 MARINES dead. Doesn't include air force, reserves, national guard, navy, etc.

And they are also doing a Vietnam style body count, purposefully killing civilians and counting them as enemy casualties.

Didn't Rumsfeld say our missiles were perfectly accurate, and civilian casualties would be minimal?
That means the civilian neighborhoods were targeted intentionally.


And you know if it wasn't banned Bush would authorise the use of napalm.
 
[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']On the whole, the analysis was actually pretty accurate to be made on the fly. Well, the inaccuracies are as follows:
"Thousands of soldiers dead" - only 1,000. See, that's practically nothing! That's 1,000 people whose lives have been ended by the war - assuming that they all had a family of 4 and only had 2 friends, and none of them had children or wives, that's only about 6,000 people whose lives have been permanently changed by the war.
Well, it's gonna take alot more than 6,000 lives ruined by a war conducted under false pretenses to get me not to vote Bush-Cheney!
[/quote]

Compassionate conservative.
 
Yes, welcome to the world of compassionate conservatism.

"1,000 soliders dead, eh? Well, we are gonna lose a few. But as our brave President said, while he was thousands of miles away from the battlefield of course, 'Bring 'em on!'" - Compassion.

"You see too many deadbeats on welfare these days! I'm tired of the government taking MY money and using it to help single moms working at McDonald's for 45 hours a week and still living below the poverty line!" - Compassion.

"Druggies should be locked up permanently! The War on Drugs is a damn good idea - people are inherently bad and therefore rehabilitation will fail. All drug users should be locked up, not rehabilitated! (Except for Rush Limbaugh, of course - he's one of us!)" - Compassion.

"Colleges using race as a factor for acceptance is ABHORRENT! Who cares that the overwhelming majority of people who can afford to send their kids to a private school where they can get an education vastly superior to anyone in a public school are white! Black people need to learn that everyone has an equal opportunity in this country and it's THEIR fault they can't afford a private school - and their kids should have to suffer for it too by not getting an equal chance to get into a good college!" - Compassion!!

"Ban stem-cell research! Sure, it could save millions of lives, but it requires UNBORN BABIES! And you know how much we compassionate conservatives love the unborn - we'll do anything to save a fetus! Of course, once it's out of the womb, it's pretty much on its own - but until that time, we'll fight for it! And since stem-cells have to come from embryos - research must be stopped! Oh, what's that? Nancy Reagan is pleading with the Bush administration to lift the funding block on stem-cell research? Whatever for?
*Gasp!* Stem-cell research could help Ronnie? Well, to hell with the unborn - we gotta protect our own! We need more stem-cell research! Now! Help The Gipper!" - COMPASSION!!!

Another interesting compassionate conservative scenario:
Cheney supports gay marriage. Why? He supports it because his daughter is a lesbian. He said it's an "issue [his] family is very familiar with." It's amazing how you start to actually become a little compassionate when the issue hits so close to home.

It's unfortunate that Cheney's daughter has never lived below the poverty line - maybe he'd care about the plight of the poor then.
It's unfortunate that Cheney's daughter has never been shot by one of the cop-killer bullets that he voted against the banning of - maybe he'd care about gun control then.
It's unfortunate that Cheney's daughter has never been in a situation where she decided an abortion was the best choice for her - maybe then he'd care about men in the government, who will never have children, telling women what to do with their bodies.
It's unfortunate that Cheney's daughter has never been caught smoking weed - maybe then he'd care a little more about trying to rehabilitate drug users, instead of throwing them in prison.

It's amazing how people like Dick Cheney only care about the plight of others when they or someone they love is in a similar situation. Why is it that something has to affect us personally before we finally say, "You know, this is an adversity I don't want people to have to face"?

Truly - that's COMPASSION!!!

Oh, no, wait, that's not what it is at all. What's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah - EGOISM!!!
 
bread's done
Back
Top