We finally have the answer to "Why would he lie?"

[Barad Simith]

"Why would he lie?" was asked repeatedly during the Democratic primary debates, in an attempt to lure the candidates into speculation as to why Bush would lead us into the invasion and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses.

Well, speculate no more. As has already been posted in Latest Breaking News ("General admits to secret air war"), Michael Smith dropped another Woodward/Bernstein-type bombshell in today's Sunday Times:

The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.

The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.

more:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html

This finally explains the "why" in "Why did Bush lie about WMDs?"

Bush and Blair had already committed these war crimes, in an attempt to provoke a fight and thereby justify an invasion.

It failed (Iraq didn't fight back), so they were desperate to find legal justification to invade ... thus the whole fixing-the-intelligence debacle.

The crime of bombing another country without justification was covered up (temporarily, it turns out) with the invasion. That's why they lied about WMDs.

We already had the weapon and the opportunity, and now we have the motive.

IMPEACH, REMOVE, IMPRISON

BORGER: So I take it the answer is yes that the president knowingly lied to the American people?

KUCINICH: The president lied to the American people.

BORGER: And why would he do that?

KUCINICH: Well, you know what, I can't speak for the president. But I can speak as the next president of the United States...

(LAUGHTER)

... to say that I intend to bring those troops home by going to the U.N. and giving up control of the oil, letting the U.N. handle that on an interim basis on behalf of the Iraqi people, letting the U.N. handle the contracts.

KUCINICH: The United States must renounce privatization. We have to ask the U.N. for help in developing a constitution and new elections in Iraq. We must pay for what we destroyed, pay for a U.N. peacekeeping mission, and provide reparations for innocent civilian non-combatants who lost their lives.

This is the plan to get out of Iraq. We can get out of Iraq, and I'll lead the way.

GOUSHA: Lester?

HOLT: I'd actually like to let Reverend Sharpton follow up on that very question. Do you think that the president knowingly lied, and if so, why?

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, I think that if he did know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.

(LAUGHTER)

Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble.

(LAUGHTER)

Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said they knew the weapons were there. He had members of the administration say they knew where the weapons were. So we're not just talking about something passing here. We're talking about 500 lives. We're talking about billions of dollars.

So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble.

Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He lied in Florida he's lied several times. I believe he lied in Iraq.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

HOLT: And Reverend, you'll recognize, obviously, calling someone a liar is a very serious charge. So it does lead to that question...

SHARPTON: I think he lied.

HOLT: So it does lead to the question: Why would he lie?

SHARPTON: Why do people lie? I mean, if in my judgment...

HOLT: I mean, knowing he would be in the position that you're putting him in now, why would he...

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, Lester, let us look at the facts. The facts are that what they presented to the United Nations, what they presented to the world was not so. You can only assume that they had to know if they said that they knew where the weapons were, that they knew they didn't know where they were.

And now to come back and tell us that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, despicable person, which we all agree, but we believed him when he told us he had them. Can you imagine me telling you that I believe somebody that you should never believe, and I brought 500 people to their deaths believing in a man that was as despicable as Hussein, and this is who we're going to have over the troops' lives in this country?

I think that this is absolutely outrageous. Why he lied? I think we should give him the rest of his retirement to figure that out and explain to us.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

FEBRUARY 15, 2004
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Wow -- just wow....

These people need to be locked up and the key thrown away. I know we're not supposed to make Nazi references, but what makes Mr. Bush invading Iraq any different than Mr. Hitler invading Poland? I just don't see how anyone can think that this is okay.

[Barad Simith]

3. Hitler ruled a relatively tiny country

The Nazi references could turn out to be an understatement, if this administration is not stopped soon.

[Southsideirish]

4. Americans (in general) don't want to know what's going on.

They love being ignorant - its so easy to be an armchair patriot.

[11 Bravo]

2. He lied because that's what liars do.

It's all he knows.

[WeirdHoward]

6. It's Energy Security Policy

The real reason we are there is for "National Energy Security". We need military bases in the region. China and the euro trading nations threaten the U.S.'s unfettered supply to middle eastern oil. We *had* to pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, under mounting pressure from the Saud's, which finally popped on 9/11.

There's no way that Bush/Blair could have sold the war based on Energy Security, so they started trying to provoke Sadam into a war. That didn't do it, so the WMD stories began. The neocon Energy Security Policy may seem cynical and imperialistic, but moreover, we should consider whether they have achieved their intended goal.

The invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. April 2003, troops were pulled out of Saudi bases, leaving just 500 troops today. We are currently building 14 permanent bases in Iraq. It all makes sense if you check the timelines, the troop deployments, etc.

Yes, they lied, but they figured it was a matter of national security (imho)

[Barad Simith]

16. This is very good: short and in-a-nutshell

Thank you, I've never seen it put so succinctly.

They couldn't exactly tell us, "We need to set up bases in Iraq because our friends the Saudis have let us know, via the 9/11 attacks, that they want us out of their country."

What a fucking mess.

[Disturbed]

11. The Bush Regime lied about Iraq because...

they knew that the Amerikan people would not support an illegal Invasion based on any other reason that Iraq was a "looming threat" with WMDs. The Regime needed a legal justification to invade because merely Regime Change is not legal. They tried to get UN sanction for an invasion and could not get that so they duped the U.S. Congress into a blank check, kicked out Hans Blix and invaded.

If there had been no Insurgency I believe that the Bush Regime would have had scant challenge regarding Iraq. The carnage is what is fueling the situation that is now going on regarding Amerikans losing confidence in the Bush Regime.

I feel that the cat is out of the bag now. All it will take is for some docs that prove inconclisively that the Bush Regime "fixed" the bogus Intell that C. Powell presented to the UN. I suspect that documents will emerge from the disgruntled rank and file of the CIA that got scapegoated with the aid of Ex CIA Chief Tenet, who betrayed the CIA rank and file. The circumstantial evidence is mounting that High Crimes were commited by the Bush Regime. Proof is still required before the House will bring forth Impeachment.

[Karenina]

12. So true.

[liberal N proud]

5. That leaves two questions

1. What was his motive? Oil Profits or to one up daddy?
2. When will the American People and Congress wake up and demand charges?

[WeirdHoward]

14. 9/11 was always a big piece of it

After the fall of the Soviet Union, under Reagan, we want to have troops on the ground in the middle east for energy security. That's when we tricked Sadam into attacking Kuwait. Basically, Sadam was told we'd look the other way if he attacked a neighbor. We turned a blind eye while committed other atrocities, so he figured us a friend. So, he invaded Kuwait, and we had our excuse to establish bases in Saudi Arabia.

From the Muslim extremist point of view, however, we were occupying Saudi Arabia. It didn't take too long for tensions to grow. Very quickly, the WTC was targetted during the first few months of the Clinton Administration. Al Qaeda wanted us out of Saudi Arabia. That was one of Osama's very specific demands. 9/11 was the crushing blow needed for the Bush Administration to capitulate to the Saud's (and Al Qaeda), and pull out of Saudi Arabia and establish bases in Iraq.

Most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals. The section of the 9/11 report concerning Saudi Arabia was removed. The members of the bin Laden family which were in the U.S. on 9/11 were hustled out of the country without much scrutiny. All of this is because Bush and company knew exactly what had to be done: *Pull of out Saudi Arabia, and invade Iraq.* No 9/11 investigation was necessary. It is that simple.

[Raksha]

7. Absolutely outrageous. Like Nixon's bombing of Cambodia. n/t

[ConfuZed]

8. He was totally wasted on coke?

[fasttense]

9. Where was the corporate media during these illicit bombing raids?

Why didn't the media notice bombs were dropping in Iraqi and report it? Couldn't they see the planes? the bombs? the lighting up of the night with the air raids?

So the brush regime clearly had the assistance of the media in covering up the lie. The media didn't just report brush's lies as if they were facts and did not investigate, they ignored what was actually going on and consciously failed to report it. Now does this look more and more like Germany before WWII?

Our corporate press is a pack of lying scoundrels too.

[sam sarrha]

13. Lieing like their lieing liar leash master..

[jokerman93]

10. a full nine months before

"If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally."

If these raids exceeded the norm and laid the foundation for the war, then I would have to conclude that the illegal war BEGAN a full nine months before the celebrated "Shock and Awe" product roll-out.

The BushWar cabal acted far outside the reach of congress, the people of the United States, and the international community of nations.

Book 'em Danno.

[Disturbed]

17. Do the reason that Bush and his Criminal Cabal...

decided to overthrow Saddam matter? I guess motive is part of any crime and people are interested in motive.

My guess is that there were numerous motives.

Bush Regime Iraq Successes

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits, esp. Bush Junta fave ally Saudi Dicktatorshit.

“We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.”
Robert Shetterly

[barbaraann]

15. I miss Al Sharpton.

:-(

[grasswire]

18. they lied to break the egg

The paramount task was to break the egg that was Iraq. Once the egg was broken, billions of dollars would flow to Bushco and the Bush family. The more chaos, the more dollars. The more intractable, the more dollars. The more American blood spilled through lack of military planning, the more dollars for generations of Bushes.

It's gory, it's heinous, it's ghoulish. The Bushes enriched their fortunes through the blood of America's young, spilled so far away in the desert sand -- so far away from loved ones, so far away from America's honor as the lamp of liberty.

Did they know there were no WMD? I believe they did. This is the next rock to turn. Why else the rush to war? They knew the inspectors would find nothing. Break the egg! Break the egg! Once it's broken, America must pay with its treasure.

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. The Liberal media must have all had broken cameras

and they all went blind??? during that period? They were COMPLICIT in covering this stuff up. They knew! They HAD to know! and they kept it from the people. Unfreakingbelievable. 21,736 sorties???? 600 bombs on 391 targets??? If they exceeded the need to maintain the no-fly zones??????.....IF THAT'S NOT EXCESSIVE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS! :grr:

Well, now we know the idiot and Blair DID act illegally, don't we.

IMPEACH!!!!!!