Friday, 19 March 2010

Can the 'Bush Lied' Deniers Handle the Truth?

Conservative apologists for the George W. Bush crew are swinging hard these days to defend their man -- and themselves -- from the charge that W. and his gang misled the nation into war. They must worry that they are going to end up on the wrong side of history. After all, a 2008 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans believed that the Bush administration "deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." (This was a big change from a poll taken two months after the 2003 invasion that noted that 67 percent believed that Bush had played it straight.)
Bush and Cheney again and again made statements that were not true and that were not supported by the available intelligence. Moreover, once U.N. inspectors entered Iraq in late 2002 and eventually began reporting that there was no evidence of significant WMD programs, Bush and Co. ignored these experts and continued to claim that Saddam was up to his neck in WMD. They insisted Saddam had been shopping for uranium in Africa, even though the intelligence on this point was dubious. All together, they waged a willful campaign of misrepresentation and hyperbole. And to such an extent, it can be branded a lie.

The key issue to be addressed here is whether or not Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to the USA, thereby allowing the War to be considered an "act of defence". Clearly this was not the case.

This 2004 Washington Post article also highlights the fact that intelligence analysts did not consider Iraq a threat. It shows that White House officials hyped precisely the opposite position to what the sober intelligence experts had concluded. These officials deliberately LIED to the people and Congress about the danger.

The Iraq War was an act of aggression and illegal under International Law.
War Crimes trials need to convened immediately.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, March 19th, 2010.]

No comments: