Right off the top, I'm going to say if you find the language objectionable, well, I find the whole Bush agenda objectionable.
I'll exercise my right of Free Speech until they take it away -- which should be any day now by my reckoning. It breaks my heart that there is no Constitution now.
But Prop 102 is not about that: it's about governments that lie.
Now you may think I'm going to go over the false WMD, the false uranium charge, the false terrorist ties, Chalabi's group, the prison abuse, and the lack of reconstruction.
That's not what I'm going to do; I'm going to focus on the LIES of SEVERAL GOVERNMENTS that we were told were AGAINST the invasion of Iraq.
The information has been culled from New York Times papers I purchased.
The relevant dates are all from 2006, dated February 27, March 2, 3, 12, and 27:
First is a report that German Intel gave the U.S. the Iraqi defense plan a month before the invasion. The Germans "offered more significant assistance to the US than their government has publicly acknowledged... and... is not the only instance in which nations that publicly cautioned against the war privately facilitated it. Egypt and Saudi Arabia... provided more help than they have disclosed."
The article details that that after the Germans passed along the intel, and "when the bombs started falling, the agents ceased operations, and went to the French embassy."
That's the French who were damn near our enemies for being "against" us on this, right? Most of the article is German government disassembling and backtracking as "accounts of German assistance differs from the one the German government has provided publicly."
German ships also provided operational assistance in some areas. This was designated by the U.S. as "noncoalition but cooperating."
Later, it was exposed that a top level German officer was stationed in Tommy Franks' office!
That the Germans "provided information on Iraqi police and military units... coordinates... of military forces... but... they did not facilitate airstrikes" against Iraq.
Germany continues the cover-up: like the government liars they are, deny, deny, deny your culpability for "Shock and Awe" slaughter.
Turns out that there was "an interesting sidelight... the two German intelligence agents... would take refuge in the French embassy. They did exactly that... giving the French, who also vociferously opposed the... war in Iraq, an indirect role in supporting" the German-American operation.
Hey, with enemies like these, who needs friends? The news analysis actually asks what the big deal is.
Like governments LYING to the PUBLIC is NO PROBLEM!
Not the only case, however. Egypt "publicly... insisted that Egypt would not provide direct help to the U.S.... but quietly allowed U.S. aerial refueling tankers to be based," in Egypt, as well as giving them overflight permission.
Saudi Arabia "played down the extent of their cooperation... but they allowed the Delta Force and other American Special Operations Forces to mount attacks in Iraq from a secret base... the public Saudi explanation was that the area was being cordoned off for a potential flood of Iraqi refugees."
The U.S. described these actions as those of "silent partners."
Then there is the multitude of U.S. LIES, with the focus on the March 12 adaptation in the Times from "Cobra II" by Mike Gordon.
Apparently, Saddam was "so preoccupied about the threat from within... he crippled his military in fighting the threat from without."
I remember Gen. T. Michael Moseley saying that the shooting at the no-fly zone patrols was a 'chicken-or-the-egg' thing.
He said that in July 2002 (to soften up Iraq), the U.S. stepped up bombing raids, which inspired Iraqis to fire their air defenses.
According to Moseley, the question was: "Is he firing more because we are flying more?"
It is important to remember that the "imminent" threat. the "grave and gathering danger" NEVER SHOT DOWN a SINGLE PATROLLING AIR CRAFT in more than 12 YEARS of a no-fly zone.
NOT ONE!!!!
Anyhow, Saddam told his commanders THREE MONTHS BEFORE the war they had no WMD!
He was more worried about internal coups and revolts than the U.S. invasion, and viewed Iran as a serious threat.
How does Gordon know this?
Because 11o Iraqis were interrogated "some to lavish dinners to pry loose their secrets and questioning others in a detention center at the Baghdad airport or the Abu Ghraib prison."
I wonder who the LUCKY Iraqis were -- and the ones who weren't so lucky, who were "questioned" at Abu Ghraib.
As for Iran, Hussein's military "conducted an exercise code-named Golden Falcon that focused on defense of the Iraq-Iran border."
I can't believe we got rid of this guy!
FIGHTS Iran and "Al-CIA-Duh" for us, and we STAB HIM in the BACK!
He even took steps to AVOID WAR!
Saddam "rejected proposals to mine the Persian Gulf, fearing... such an action," as an excuse for America to strike.
He ordered that U.N. inspectors "be given the access they wanted and... ordered a crash effort to scrub the country" so there would be no trace of any banned weapons.
That behavior, HIS COMPLIANCE WITH UN RESOLUTIONS, actually led to his downfall!!!
The very same actions "were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons," and those actions "the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it."
Yup, by this LYING, MURDERING, WAR CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION!!
TELLING LIES to LEAD us to WAR!!!!!
MASS-MURDERING CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!
And POOR Saddam, huh?
Can't win for losing, could you Saddam (peace be upon you)?
And how about your friends, the Russians?
They were protecting you by giving you false information "raising the possibility that it might have been part of a deliberate American effort to fool" the Iraqis with a "disinformation campaign."
NO!!!
America would NEVER do something like that, engage in a campaign of DECEIT and DECEPTION!
That NEVER, EVER happened in the past, and the stink-fuck American government WOULD NEVER LIE US into war, oh no!
Then there is the BOMBSHELL! Bigger than the Downing Street Memo!
Their existence was announced by the New York Times on March 27. 2006, and they are affectionately known as the Sands Memos.
They detail a January 2003 meeting between Bliar and Bush that puts the lie to all the diplomatic posturing -- and exposes an even more NEFARIOUS and SINISTER side of the actions our governments have taken to lead us to war.
After reading this, please tell me again how 9/11 could not possibly or conceivably be an inside job.
According to Sands, Bush was "determined to invade Iraq... even if arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons... the start date... was penciled in for 10 March."
Both leaders knew no weapons had been found, or would likely be, so "Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the UN in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein."
So there it is!
Discussion of a real-live, honest-to-goodness FALSE-FLAG OPERATION!
Oh, and the assassination talk, um, George, that's a violation of law. Add another WAR CRIME CHARGE to the IMPEACHMENT LEDGER!!!
As for a second UN resolution, the US would "twist arms and even threaten."
Or SPY on MEMBER STATES, according to the brave British civil servant Katherine Gun.
And how did Bush and Bliar think the war would go?
They were "supremely confident... envisioned a quick victory... Bush predicted that it was 'unlikely there would be internecine warfare,' " and Bliar agreed.
Blair asked about post-invasion planning and "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand... Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."
Yup, a FUCKING FAILURE as always!
Oh, how this DIPSHIT has HURT OUR COUNTRY!!
FUCKING LYING DIPSHIT! However, buried deep in the middle of the piece is an incredible acknowledgment. by Bliar.
Bliar wanted the second UN resolution "because it would serve as an 'insurance policy against the unexpected' if anything went wrong with the military campaign... [it] would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."
Do you comprehend the significance of the statement, reader?
When Bliar talks about an "insurance policy against the unexpected' if anything went wrong with the military campaign," he recognizes that what he and Bush initiated is a WAR CRIME!!!
When Bliar is concerned about the military campaign and "unexpected" events, he is concerned about the fact that THEY MAY LOSE!
ONLY LOSERS ARE PUNISHED FOR WAR CRIMES!! WINNERS NEVER ARE!!!
Despite their "supreme confidence" and certainty in their case and cause, these guys were AWARE that they were COMMITTING a WAR CRIME by invading Iraq.
And now it's exponential. Bush guilty of High Crimes and Treason!!
We've used Depleted Uranium weapons in Iraq, and we've dropped chemical weapons on Fallujah.
The list of crimes against humanity that George W. Bush has committed GROWS by the DAY!
Given the unending streams of LIES and OBFUSCATIONS from this administration, reader, is it pure fantastical conjecture that these cretinous criminals not only allowed 9/11 to occur, but that they actually made it happen?
Is it so far beyond the realm of thought now?
Is it?
(Updated version; Originally published October 7, 2006)
