Saturday, December 10, 2005

A war based on a lie based on torture

One of the key lies used by Bush to sell his immoral war in Iraq was the claim of links between Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath regime and Al Qaeda. For example, in February 2003, Bush claimed that

Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

And that

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.

The primary source for these claims was a high-level Al Qaeda captive named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. Last month, we learned that American intelligence officials believed as early as February 2002 that al-Libi was "intentionally misleading [his] debriefers", and that his information was unreliable. A story from today's New York Times reveals why: because al-Libi's statements were extracted under torture:

The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on detailed statements made by a prisoner in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.

The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of al-Qaida members and others detained as part of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.

The evil compounds. Iraq wasn't just a war based on a lie; it was a war based on a lie based on torture.


Well never mind in 2 and a bit years you can start to forget about bush.
Maybe have a McCain vs edwards or Clinton ticket.
Whoever it is can disown some of bush's stuff and maybe hang some token politicians... maybe cheney, he would make a god sacrificial lamb.

Posted by Genius : 12/10/2005 10:03:00 AM

I mean good heh

Posted by Genius : 12/10/2005 10:03:00 AM

As if the secular Ba'athist regime under Hussein would want to be anywhere near the fanatic al Qaeda, it's just ridiculous. You'd have to be mad to think that he would buddy up to an organisation that could so deeply undercut his personal power in Iraq.

Posted by Muerk : 12/10/2005 11:54:00 AM

Genius, you place far too much faith in the honesty of people running an electoral system with no audit trail. The warnings of Wasserman should be considered (summary: sufficient evidence exists to have the US 2004 elections overturned on the same basis that the 2004 Uzbekistan results were overturned). If he turns out to be right (and I don't claim to have followed many of the references, save the Conyer's report), the question will shift to, what do you do when the people living in the world's most powerful nation still think they are living in a democracy but are actually living in a viscious and bloody dictatorship?

Posted by Anonymous : 12/12/2005 09:16:00 AM

maybe if there is a 50/50 split (like the florida issue) in that case the democrats or republicans could steal an election but if lets say the democrats won by 60/40 they could not. I suggest there is a good chance that there will be a weak republican leader next election (due t a foolish promary choice) and the republicans will be positively thumped.

besides the democrats would cheat just as bad as the republicans if the republicans cheated and they could not nail them for it.

Posted by Genius : 12/13/2005 07:14:00 PM

Its really looking like a good chance that Jeb Bush, (George's brother) current governor of Florida may be going for the Republican nomination, Hilary Clinton is a foregone conclusion for the Democrats, even though Kerry will probably run again, he was to damaged by the last fight, that's the way its looking here in Kentucky. Most of the south is neutral or pro war right now, but with the draw down occurring next year the media will cover it even less, look for everything to change by middle of 2007 when the real fight for 2008 begins. THe mid-term coming up may swing the Senate into the democrats camp, but still think the Republicans will hold on to the House of Representative. IF there is another major 9/11 attack though, all bets are off and the Republicans stock will go up.

Jonathan Waggoner,
Spent time in Taranaki, voted for Bush 2000, 2004, and who nows probably next time. People seem to forget Americans are still scared shitless when it comes to terrorism, on the surface everyday its a general unspoken in ease. Of course with the recent racial riots in Australia, everyone is blaming Bush, heck I don't even think he's ever been there, has he?

Anyone, Anyone? -- Merry Christmas kiwis!!!

Posted by Anonymous : 12/15/2005 01:07:00 PM