Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts
Volume 3, Number 24 July 20 - 26, 2003 Quezon City, Philippines
Bush, You Are A Liar
William Rivers Pitt
to Alternative Reader Index
of PFC Grimes' fellow soldiers have died in Iraq, and 1,044 more have been
wounded. The war created chaos in the cities, and it seems clear now that very
little in the way of preparation was made to address the fact that invasion
leads to social bedlam, not to mention a lot of shooting. Last Sunday, CNN's
Judy Woodruff showed a clip of a Sergeant Charles Pollard, who said, "All
we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks."
to the numbers, almost two thirds of the soldiers killed in Iraq since May 1
died in "non-combat related" mishaps like accidental weapons
discharges, accidental detonations of unexploded ordnance, and questionable car
crashes. There are some in the world who might take comfort from the fact that
only one third of the dead since May came from snipers or bombs or
rocket-propelled grenades. Dead is dead, however. There is no comforting them.
significant portion of the dead and wounded came after Bush performed his
triumphant swagger across the deck of an aircraft carrier that was parked just
outside San Diego bay. Those dead and wounded came because the Bush
administration's shoddy planning for this whole event left the troopers on the
firing line wide open to the slow and debilitating bloodletting they have
endured. A significant portion of the dead and wounded came after Bush stuck his
beady chin out on national television and said, "Bring 'em on!"
a leader sends troops out into the field of battle, they become his
responsibility. When his war planning is revealed to be profoundly faulty,
flawed in ways that are getting men killed, he should not stick his banty
rooster chest out to the cameras and speak with the hollow bravado of a man who
knows he is several time zones away from the violence and bloodshed.
behavior is demonstrably criminal from a moral standpoint. The events that led
to this reprehensible display were criminal in a far more literal sense.
and the White House told the American people over and over again that Iraq was
in possession of vast stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Bush and the White House said over and over again that this was a direct threat
to the United States. Bush and the White House told the American people over and
over again that Iraq was directly connected to al Qaeda terrorism, and would
hand those terrible weapons over to the terrorists the first chance they got.
Bush and the White House told Congress the same thing. Very deliberately, Bush
and the White House tied a war in Iraq to the attack of September 11.
was all a lie. All of it.
George W. Bush delivered his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union
Address in January 2003, he stated flatly that Iraq was attempting to develop a
nuclear weapons program. "The British government has learned," said
Bush in his speech, "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium in Africa." He delivered this proclamation on the
basis of intelligence reports which claimed that Iraq was attempting to procure
uranium from the African nation of Niger.
President Cheney got the Niger ball rolling in a speech delivered August 26,
2002 when he said Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear
weapons." As the data clearly shows, Mr. Cheney was a central player in the
promulgation of the claim that Iraq was grubbing for uranium in Africa. This
statement was the opening salvo.
Director George Tenet made this same claim in a briefing to the Senate
Intelligence Committee on September 24, 2002. This briefing was the deciding
factor for a number of Senatorial fence-sitters unsure about voting for war.
Bush, in a speech delivered on the eve of the Congressional vote for war on
Iraq, referenced the Niger uranium claims again when he raised the specter of a
"mushroom cloud" just three sentences after evoking "The horror
of September 11."
sealed the deal. Congress voted for war, and a clear majority of the people
supported the President.
the last week, a blizzard of revelations from high-ranking members of the
intelligence community has turned these Bush administration claims inside out.
It began with a New York Times editorial by Joseph Wilson, former US ambassador
to several African nations. Wilson was dispatched in February of 2002 at the
behest of Dick Cheney to investigate the veracity of the Niger evidence. Wilson
spent eight days digging through the data, and concluded that the evidence was
completely worthless. The documents in question which purportedly indicated
Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium were crude forgeries.
his return in February of 2002, Ambassador Wilson reported back to the people
who sent him on his errand. According to his editorial, the CIA, the State
Department, the National Security Council and the Vice President's office were
all informed that the Niger documents were forged. "That information was
erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the
British white paper and the president's State of the Union address," said
Wilson in a 'Meet the Press' interview last Sunday.
have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to
Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat,"
Wilson wrote in his Times editorial. "A legitimate argument can be made
that we went to war under false pretenses." He elaborated further in a
Washington Post interview, saying, "It really comes down to the
administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental
justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying
Wilson's claims are not easily dismissed. Wilson is a 23-year veteran of the
foreign service who was the top diplomat in Baghdad before the first Gulf War.
In 1990, he was lauded by the first President Bush for his work. "What you
are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly
inspiring," cabled Bush Sr. "Keep fighting the good fight."
great hue and cry has been raised as to the timing of the data delivery to the
policy-makers. Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have both claimed they knew
nothing of the forged Niger evidence, claiming the information was buried in the
"bowels" of the intelligence services. Vice President Cheney's office
has made similar demurrals. Obviously, the administration is attempting to
scapegoat the CIA.
the nature of Wilson's claims, and given who he is, and given the fact that he
was sent to Niger at the behest of Dick Cheney, it is absurd to believe the
administration was never given the data they specifically asked for over a year
before the war began, and eleven months before Bush's fateful State of the Union
CIA veteran Ray McGovern, writing in a recent editorial, described a
conversation he had with a senior official who recently served at the National
Security Council. "The fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that
the Iraq-Niger report be checked out," said the official, "makes it
inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results."
is not alone. Greg Thielmann served as Director of the State Department's Bureau
of Intelligence and Research until his retirement in September. Mr. Thielmann
has come forward recently to join Ambassador Wilson in denouncing the Bush
administration's justifications for war in Iraq.
believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the
American people of the military threat posed by Iraq," said Thielmann on
Wednesday. During his press conference, Mr. Thielmann said that, as of the
commencement of military operations in March of 2003, "Iraq posed no
imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States". Mr.
Thielmann also dismissed the oft-repeated claims of a connection between Iraq
and al Qaeda. "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence
attitude," he said.
could have saved his breath, and Wilson could have saved himself a trip, if the
Bush administration had bothered to pay any attention to the International
Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA's chief spokesman, Mark Gwozdecky, said on
September 26, 2002 that no such evidence existed to support claims of a nascent
Iraqi nuclear program.
House spokesman Ari Fleischer on July 8 stood before the press corps and said
the President's statements during the State of the Union address had been
us look at the timeline of this and consider the definition of
February 2002: Ambassador Joseph Wilson is dispatched by Cheney to Niger to
investigate Iraq-uranium claims. Eight days later, he reports back that the
documentary evidence was a forgery;
August 26, 2002: Dick Cheney claims Iraq is developing a nuclear program;
September 24, 2002: CIA Director Tenet briefs the Senate Intelligence Committee
on the reported Iraqi nuclear threat, using the Niger evidence to back his
September 26, 2002: The IAEA vigorously denies that any such nuclear program
exists in Iraq;
October 6, 2002: George W. Bush addresses the nation and threatens the American
people with "mushroom clouds" delivered by Iraq, using the same Niger
October 10, 2002: Congress votes for war in Iraq, based on the data delivered by
Tenet and by the nuclear rhetoric from Bush four days prior;
January 2003: George W. Bush, in his State of the Union Address, says, "The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium in Africa."
March-April 2003: War in Iraq kills thousands of civilians and destabilizes the
April-July 2003: No evidence whatsoever of chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons can be found in Iraq. 212 American soldiers have died, and 1,044 more
have been wounded, as a guerilla war is undertaken by Iraqi insurgents;
July 2003: Amid accusations from former intelligence officials, the Bush
administration denies ever having known the Niger evidence was fake.
Bush administration knew full well that their evidence was worthless, and still
stood before the American people and told them it was fact. Bush sent the
Director of the CIA to the Senate under orders to use the same worthless
evidence to cajole that body into war.
is not being "incorrect." That is lying. In the context of Bush's
position as President, and surrounded by hundreds of dead American soldiers
piled alongside thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, that is a crime.
know it, too.
report hit the Reuters wires late Tuesday night announcing the arrest of an
Iraqi intelligence official named Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. An unnamed
"US official" claimed al-Ani had reportedly met with 9/11 ringleader
Mohammed Atta in Prague just months before the attack. The old saw about Iraq
working fist in glove with al Qaeda to bring about September 11 was back in the
to the story, neither the CIA or the FBI could confirm this meeting had taken
place. In fact, a Newsweek report from June 9 entitled "Where are the WMDs?"
shows the FBI was completely sure such a meeting had never taken place. The
snippet below is from the Newsweek article; the 'Cabal' statement refers to
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his coterie of hawks who have been all-out for
war on Iraq since 1997:
Cabal was eager to find a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, especially proof
that Saddam played a role in the 9-11 attacks. The hard-liners at Defense seized
on a report that Muhammad Atta, the chief hijacker, met in Prague in early April
2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official. Only one problem with that story, the
FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia
Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts.)"
the accusations that have exploded surrounding the revelations of Wilson,
Thielmann and other high-ranking intelligence officials, comes now again reports
of the infamous Iraq-al Qaeda connection, an administration claim meant to
justify the war. As with the Niger forgery, however, it is too easily revealed
to be utterly phony.
reeks of desperation. This administration is learning a lesson that came to
Presidents Nixon and Johnson with bitter tears: Scapegoat the CIA at your mortal
are many who believe that blaming George W. Bush for the errors and gross
behavior of his administration is tantamount to blaming Mickey Mouse for
mistakes made by Disney. There is a great deal of truth to this. Groups like
Rumsfeld's 'Cabal,' and the right-wing think tanks so closely associated to the
creation of administration foreign policy, are very much more in control of
matters than Bush.
Bush knew the facts of the matter. He allowed CIA Director Tenet to lie to
Congress with his bare face hanging out in order to get that body to vote for
war. He knew the facts and lied himself, on countless occasions, to an American
people who have been loyally supporting him, even as he beats them over the head
with the image of collapsing towers and massive death to stoke their fear and
dread for his own purposes. In doing these things, he consigned 212 American
soldiers to death, along with thousands of innocent bystanders in Iraq. Given
the current circumstances, there will be more dead to come.
is no "The President wasn't told" justification available here, no
Iran/Contra loophole. He knew. He lied. His people knew. They lied.
knows no political affiliation, and a bloody lie is a bloody lie is a bloody
lie. The time has come for Congress to fulfill their constitutional duties in
this matter, to defend the nation and the soldiers who live and die in her
service. The definition of 'is' has flown right out the window. This 'is' a
crime. George W. Bush lied to the people, and lied to Congress.
There are a lot of people dead because of it.
Congresswoman, Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, released a
statement on July 8 that cuts right to the heart of the matter:
months of denials, President Bush has finally admitted that he misled the
American public during his State of the Union address when he claimed that Iraq
attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. That is why we need an independent
commission to determine the veracity of the other so-called evidence used to
convince the American people that war with Iraq was unavoidable.
is not enough for the White House to issue a statement saying that President
Bush should not have used that piece of intelligence in his State of the Union
address at a time when he was trying to convince the American people that
invading Iraq was in our national security interests. Did the president know
then what he says he only knows now? If not, why not, since that information was
available at the highest level.
else did the Bush Administration lie about? What other faulty information did
Administration officials, including President Bush, tell the American people and
the world? Did the Bush Administration knowingly deceive us and manufacture
intelligence in order to build public support for the invasion of Iraq? Did Iraq
really pose an imminent threat to our nation? These questions must be answered.
The American people deserve to know the full truth."
voice of Rep. Schakowsky must be followed by others both within and without the
majority. If nothing is done about this, American justice is a sad, sorry,
Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times
best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from
Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available
from Pluto Press at http://www.silenceissedition.com/)
We want to know what you think of this article.