Bush did not mention WMDs in his speech.

[Octafish]

So. The Crazy Monkey failed to mention WMDs in his speech.



Wasn't that the official reason for going into Iraq, the one given to Congress in super-duper tippy-top secret briefings on the Hill?

Same thing happened in '90, when George Herbert Walker Bush was working on his casus belli. He said Iraq was developing nukes. Congress, Corporate McPravda, the Pentagon and the Public went along.

Both Poppy Doc and Junior Doc Bush also knew Iraq possessed no WMDs.

We the People didn't.

That's Treason.

[EFerrari]

1. Is there a transcript we can deconstruct somewhere?

I couldn't watch.

[Octafish]

4. Monkey Talk.

ABC got this before the TV talk-talk. I can't wait to get the transcript of what the nutjob actually said.

TRANSCRIPT: Bush Addresses Iraq

President Outlines Surge Strategy, Endorses General's Recommendations

Sept. 13, 2007 —

The following remarks are those as prepared for delivery and released by the White House in advance of President Bush's eighth nationally televised, prime time address on the subject of the Iraq War.

President Bush: Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.

We are now at such a moment.

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region and attack us here at home.

If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing.

In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it.

As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases.

First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar Province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds.

Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar Province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al Qaeda. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al Qaeda, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers.

Today, a city where al Qaeda once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding.

Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our Provincial Reconstruction Teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al Qaeda to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar Province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours -- a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt against al Qaeda was murdered.

In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work."

And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control.

Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago, much of Diyala Province was a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al Qaeda stronghold.

Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala Province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination.

Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military. They are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi Security Forces, and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks -- and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done.

For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains.

According to Gen. Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired Gen. Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the National Police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.

Because of this success, Gen. Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar Province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.

And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

Gen. Petraeus also recommends that in December we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve.

Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted Gen. Petraeus's recommendations.

I have directed Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq, so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly.

I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success."

The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds.

Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.

These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror, and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al Qaeda could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East.

We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight, I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations Gen. Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help by implementing the International Compact to revitalize Iraq's economy, by participating in the Neighbors Conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the frontlines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan.

Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for.

And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win & even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free."

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken.

It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3600417&page=1

Another Big Monkey Diversion.

[GrannyK]

7. Hmmmmm

But I thought I heard him say something about Iran and nuclear program, but it's not in your written version. Was I just expecting it so much I heard it?

[EFerrari]

15. Thank you, Octafish. n/t

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. Succinct.

Treasonous, evil and smarmy. Not a good fit for a democratic, leadership position, IMHO.

[Octafish]

8. Son of the nation's first Chief of the Secret Police to become President.

That is, "President" if only because of the October Surprise treason.

The Original October Surprise

By Robert Parry
October 25, 2006

Editor’s Note: As the United States heads toward a pivotal election on Nov. 7, both Republicans and Democrats are worried about the prospect of an “October Surprise” that could alter the political dynamic in the next two weeks.

Though last-minute campaign surprises are probably as old as democracy itself, the phrase in its modern usage dates back just over a quarter century to 1980 when President Jimmy Carter was seeking the freedom of 52 American hostages in Iran. Then-vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush fretted publicly that a hostage release might be an “October Surprise” that would catapult Carter to reelection.

Ironically, however, the 1980 “October Surprise” controversy came to refer to an alleged dirty trick by Bush and other Republicans that thwarted Carter from gaining the hostages’ freedom. Carter’s failure propelled Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. to a landslide victory.

Arguably, the “October Surprise” of 1980 ushered in the modern era of GOP dominance, with the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations. Arguably, too, the Democrats’ failure in December 1992 to get the truth out about the Republican chicanery set the stage for the Right’s congressional resurgence in 1994 and for today’s George W. Bush Era.

So, given the importance of the 1980 election in shaping today’s political terrain – and given the current interest in what might happen in the days ahead – we are publishing a series about the original October Surprise adapted from Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq:

History turned in December 1992 when the truth about what happened in the pivotal 1980 presidential election might finally have been revealed to the American people. Just a month after Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush, the dam that had held back the 12-year-old secrets finally gave way.

An investigative House Task Force was putting the finishing touches on a report intended to debunk the longstanding October Surprise allegations of Republican interference with the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980. The bipartisan Task Force planned to treat the story as a conspiracy theory run wild.

But suddenly the Task Force found itself inundated by a flood of new evidence going the other way, indicating that the long-whispered suspicions of a grotesque Republican dirty trick a dozen years earlier were true.

Task Force chief counsel Lawrence Barcella, who had been onboard for the debunking, was stunned by the late surge of new evidence. He concluded that it couldn’t be ignored and that it justified extending the investigation at least a few more months.

Years later, Barcella told me that he recommended a three-month extension to the Task Force chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, but the Indiana Democrat rejected the idea of taking the extra time to check out the new evidence. An extension would have required getting approval from the new Congress being seated in 1993.

Plus, Hamilton, who was about to ascend to the chairmanship of the House International Affairs Committee, had other priorities. He treasured perhaps more than anything his reputation as a respected centrist figure in a capital city torn by partisanship.

Hamilton, with his no-nonsense butch haircut and home-spun eloquence, was a candidate for one of Washington’s highest unofficial honors, the title of Wise Man. Indeed, Hamilton’s passion for bipartisanship had made him the Democrat that the Republicans most wanted to run an investigation into Republican wrongdoing.

When Hamilton was chosen in late 1991 to chair the October Surprise Task Force, Republicans hailed his selection. Hamilton then selected investigators who weren’t inclined to press too hard, even as Hamilton’s GOP counterpart, Rep. Henry Hyde, staffed his side with tough-minded partisans.

At one point, in a gesture of bipartisanship, Hamilton even granted Republicans veto power over the choice of a Democratic staff investigator. Hyde exercised this extraordinary offer by blocking the appointment of House International Affairs Committee chief counsel Spencer Oliver because Oliver suspected the October Surprise allegations might just be true.

Debunking Bias

So, as the investigation proceeded in 1992, there was a powerful inclination inside the Task Force to dismiss the allegations that had dribbled out over the years, depicting a kind of a prequel to the Iran-Contra scandal, which broke in 1986 with disclosures of other secret arms-for-hostages deals between the Reagan administration and Iran’s radical Islamic government.

Despite exposure of the lies that had surrounded the Iran-Contra Affair, Hamilton’s Task Force didn’t want to believe that George H.W. Bush and other Republicans had begun those contacts six years earlier by undercutting President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 Americans held hostage in Iran in 1980.

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/102506.html

and then came his Dim Son, appointed pretzeldent by the Supreme Court clowns...

As you know, BushDespiser12, there is an enormous accounting to be reckoned. It's going to take more than one Grand Jury to get the Truth about these traitors out in the open.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. This nation of "democracy" was usurped some time ago, and

there will be no easy road to exact another representative governing body. Without the involvement and will of the majority, we will continue to be fodder for these beasts. Informative OPs like yours make all the difference in the world. Well done sir. :patriot:

[Gregorian]

3. That's remarkable.

Not a word. Connecting the dots just gets easier.


Everything changed after 9/11 Rove resigned.

[Octafish]

12. 'Everything changed after 9... Rover resigned.'

Bush still loves war, though.

Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say

Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.

CONTINUED...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

America's attention is being diverted to the Surge instead of the Big Lie:

Bush Lied America into War.

[Gregorian]

14. And many aren't even paying attention.

He's banking on that. I have intelligent friends who are liberal at heart. But they're just not paying attention. Even they aren't. I can't imagine those who work 9-5, and those who are so happy that their beloved prez is bombing babies in another part of the world.

But I have hope. That sounds so empty after a million Iraqis have died.

[L. Coyote]

5. You can only fit in so many lies. K & R & IMPEACH

[Hoof Hearted]

6. So just how long do you think his ear hair would be if he let it grow?

That is one yukky photo.

[wiggs]

10. The original IWR was based on two conditions...that there's a link to 9/11 and

that there's imminent threat to the US.

It was clear at the time that neither condition was fulfilled. It is abundantly clear now and if congress wanted it could re-examine the validity of the resolution.

I didn't watch...but it is amazing how quickly the goalposts move and how everyone pretends not to notice.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Once the war started it didn't matter about the WMD, it was too late.

They knew that. Oh sure, they kept up a pretense for a month or two, but that was it, after that no more mention of WMD.

[lonestarnot]

13. Agree, but how do we prove what was in little monkey's mind, but rocks?

He doesn't, but you do! :yourock: octafish!

[Poiuyt]

16. He also never mentioned the word "Victory."

[bleever]

17. We're creating a beacon, like Hamurger U., in Des Plaines

Illinois, franchising our "I'm Loving It!" democracy across the world.

Roy Kroc, McDonald's CEO, said that when you see your (economic) competitor drowning, stick a hose down his throat.

How does that fit with a political philosophy of all people created equally, with equal claims to human rights?

[fooj]

18. Treason courtesy of the BFEE.

:grr: I want these treasonous, rat bastards to be held accountable for EVERYTHING. NOW.

[Swamp Rat]

19. Crazy Chimp!

They're right under his desk! :eyes: :dunce:

[OwnedByFerrets]

20. From what I hear, neither did he say the word Victory, but did

use his crutch Betrayus about 1000 times.