…so extraordinarily wrong, dishonorable and criminal.

I loathe having to write this. I wish not to focus on the negative, to cast our nation’s leaders in ill light. I always wish to give them grace and the benefit of doubt.

And it would seem that it should be a superfluous exercise, as it should be plain as can be to anyone who as eyes to see and ears to hear. But still, Bush loyalists (or hawkish individuals) stand by the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. Others feel the war was justified, but the post war occupation is the deed that was poorly planned and carried out with little competency. Or they serve as mealy-mouthed apologists, who resort to embarrassing hand-waving gestures to assure that we all thought as the intelligence officials instructed, and that if there is fault to be found, if any, it lies with those who were honestly mistaken.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Revelation after revelation from administration insiders and holders of high government offices confirm that this ill fated path was preordained long before the initial bombings. Even while the 9/11 rubble was still smoldering, Bush and his officers were angling to strike at Iraq. They plugged in their own people to report back to them what they wanted to hear. Anyone with official standing in their way was shoved aside or declared to be radical America haters.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, famed author and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi (the man who put Charles Manson behind bars) lays out the legal framework for the prosecution of George W. Bush for the murder of more than 100,000 innocent.

LIE ONE: SADDAM HUSSIEN’S ALLEGED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION MADE HIM AN “IMMINENT” THREAT TO U.S. SECURITY

1. The preposterous nature of the Bush allegation that Hussien was an imminent threat to U.S. security.

   • Bush and his people were the ones who came up with this preposterous notion
   • Directly stated that Saddam and his weapons are a “direct threat”
   • Repeated use of “now”, “any given day”, “urgent”…

2. The fact that Bush stopped pursuing, for all intents and purposes, the person responsible for 9/11.

3. Bush deliberately lied in 1st national TV address on Iraqi crisis (7 October 2002) when he said Hussien was “a great danger to our nation” because he could use UAV with “chemical or biological payloads” or provide biological, chemical weapons to terrorist organizations.

4. Direct evidence (and just a small sampling) of Bush and his people lying in regards to 2002 NIE:

   • 2004 Senate Select committee said CIA conclusions in that report were either overstated or not supported by underlying intelligence reporting
   • Differences between 2002 classified NIE and 2004 unclassified version
   • Bush administration pressured CIA and intelligence agencies to pin 9/11 on Iraq no matter the evidence
   • On 12 September 2001, according to Richard Clarke, “he (President Bush) wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11”
   • In February 2006, Foreign Affairs article CIA agent Paul Pillar wrote “intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions that already had been made”

5. Downing Street Memo (minutes) that explicitly record how intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy

6. Cherry picking intelligence and relying on untrustworthy sources like Curveball

7. Using discredited info like the famous 16 words about Niger uranium that they knew was fraudulent. The original documents making the claim that Niger agreed to sell Hussien uranium were crude forgeries.

LIE TWO: SADDAM HUSSIEN WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11

At one point (August 2003), 70% of Americans believed Hussien was involved with 9/11. Who was responsible for this widespread misconception? I believe (and quite certain that some internet smartypants will correct me) over 90% of U.S. troops thought as such also. While not directly stating the linkage, administration voices repeatedly and purposefully intermingled Iraq and Al-Qaeda, over and over, in Goebbels like fashion.

During his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, George W. Bush pronounced:

With those attacks, the terrorist and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

Tell me he wasn’t conflating Iraq and al Qaeda. If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, why did the president, vice-president, cabinet officers and aides continue to intersperse these divergent entities into one amorphous enemy blob, all intent to justify their illegal and immoral invasion of a country that posed no threat to the U.S.?

By no means was the “Mission Accomplished” speech an isolated occurrence. The most rudimentary internet search will reveal an abundance of such deliberated remarks in the same vein. Three years later, in February 2006, George W. Bush still stood by the statement that “we’re taking the fight to those who attacked us”. What? Iraq did not attack the U.S. and had nothing to do with 9/11.

As Stephen Kull, PIPA director, stated, Bush was entirely successful in creating a sense that there is a connection, via manipulation of language.

I could go on and on, and present a litany of evidence illustrating the rhetorical jujitsu employed by the Bush/Cheney propaganda campaign, but will just cite the story of Wilton Sekzer, father of Jason Sekzer who worked on 105th story of Tower One on 9/11 and perished on that fateful day. Sekzer was featured in Why We Fight. Mr. Wilton was one who was led to believe al Qaeda and Iraq were, and was so enthusiastic about a justified reprisal that he requested his some be memorialized with his signature on a bomb destined for Iraq.

“Put his name on a bomb”

“What did he just say? I mean, I almost jumped out of my chair. I said, ‘What is he talking about? If Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, then why did we go in there? I’m from the old school. Certain people walk on water. The President of the United States is one of them. It’s a terrible thing if someone like me can’t trust the president.”

Bush defenders can point and defer blame to “the so called liberal media” as culprits who willingly served up the Iraq war justification, but that is totally naive, given that Bush administration forces were tugging the talking head puppet strings.

And the Democratic controlled Congress act to wipe all this grave malfeasance under the mat is most shameful.