In case you missed it, the National Journal's Murray Waas carried and incredible story about the briefing papers provided to the President in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
And, they are damning.
If these papers were even read by the President, Vice President and National Security Advisor (at that time Condi Rice) then all three of them continually lied to us to get us into that war.
Among other things, the papers said:
- Saddam was no risk to the United States
- Saddam would probably never use NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) weapons unless his regime was under immenient threat.
- The infamous aluminum tubes Saddam had ordered were for conventional weapons not nuclear programs.
And that led to some interesting questions on some other progressive blogs. The most interesting one over on firedoglake was: Did Bush lie or is he so breath-takingly incompetent that he just didn't do his job?
My response is below.
He lied...not just during the run-up to Gulf War II, but in his campaign to become President.
Remember how, when asked about Foreign Policy in a debate, Bush said that his policy would be "humble"? He lied....He lied because even at that time he knew that he would attack Iraq, and, at that time anyway, he knew it would be for purely political reasons. It was only after Dead-eye-dick joined the team that he found "intellectual" (puke, puke, puke) cover from the Neocons with their PAX AMERICANA philosophy from the PNAC.
He knew during the campaign that his foreign policy would be PAX AMERICANA and deliberately WITHHELD that plan from the American people because nobody in America (at least those in their right mind) would have voted for him on that platform.
He fulfilled a tenet of the Neocon faith: Tell the "noble lie to the populace because they are too stupid to understand and condone your truth.
I don't know which lies are worse: The ones that got us into war or the ones that made Bush our President.
hizzhoner
