The British Are Coming!

Jon Perr

Sunday's Oregonian looks in depth at the flood of pre-war Downing Street documents and the concern of British policymakers in 2002 with the Bush administration's justification and preparedness for the coming war with Iraq.  Page A2 features key excerpts showing British anxiety over "fixed intelligence", the "grudge between Bush and Saddam", and the Bush team's efforts to link Iraq to Al Qaeda that were "frankly uncovincing."

These new revelations are increasingly focusing national attention on the duplicity and incompetence of President Bush's Iraq war planning. With criticism building, poll numbers plummeting and facing defections from his own party, the President used his weekly radio address on Saturday to begin a new PR offensive to bolster support for Iraq policies.

If that performance is any indication, George Bush has moved from profound deception and deep denial to outright fantasy. In one short address, Bush resurrected the fiction that Iraq was somehow complicit in 9/11, while pretending his May 1, 2003 victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln never happened.

Consider President Bush's statements over time regarding...

Why War with Iraq?

Was There An Al Qaeda Link?

Have We Prevailed?

For a chart summarizing these staggering statements from President Bush, click here.

For the complete set of British pre-war documents and a host of other Iraq-related materials, visit the Bush Document Library.   

Comments

  • Rees (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Great account of Bush's flip-flops. Only one problem, at least with the summarizing chart:

    Then: "Mission Accomplished." President Bush's Backdrop, May 1, 2003.

    Later: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."President Bush, May 1, 2003.

    As in later the same day?

  • Trey Smith (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This offers yet another example of what my parents taught me years ago -- Lying starts a person down a slippery slope. It's hard to keep track of lies and, once a big lie is told, you must continually manufacture MORE lies to keep the initial lie covered up. After awhile, it's hard for the person themself to distinguish between the truth and the calvacade of lies.

  • cicolini (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I took my son to climb through a operating B17 this morning down in Aurora. We were surrounded by hundreds of ancient vets; proud men who'd flown these crazy machines and won a great war.

    Bush is just a puny war criminal. He'll be chased like Pinochet and Kissinger, and fight for the rest of his life to justify his gluttony. Pathetic.

    I doubt my son will take his son to see the old war machines in 2050 or so, the war machines which destroyed an undefended nation, killed more civilians than soldiers, and were hated by those they sought to liberate. There's no honor or valor in conquest.

  • myrln (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Unfortunately, the Dumbya gang has three and half more years to do and say whatever they please thanks to the red states.

  • Gregor (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Memogate! When WILL the MSM call it by a kitschy name? It would give it staying power. Did anyone notice that on MSN after nearly 50,000 reviewed the question, 95% felt that Bush misled the country into the war in Iraq.

  • Ed Bickford (unverified)
    (Show?)

    From Bush's Saturday radio address:

    "Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror."

    Now, I know he's not stupid (he gets what he wants) but this is just too good! One could read this as: People know I had no right to invade Iraq, and that I turned it into a hotbed of terrorism. I just don't care!

    When your poll numbers nosedive and you still spout this kind of jaw-dropping bravado, you are obviously not concerned with what most people think, only the neo-con aristocracy.

  • Harold Cade (unverified)
    (Show?)

    A central principle of the Bush War in the Mid East is that if we weren't fighting Al Qa`eda there, we'd be fighting them here. That's what he means when he says "... all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror." Just what kind of model are they using to reach that conclusion? They are never held to account to spell out the mechanics of anything. They could never explain the process for "post-war" Iraq and got a bye on that one all through the election. Cheney said it repeatedly. Nader was right that if the election were close it would have nothing to do with his participation, given the huge difference that should exist based on the issues.

    The opposition never took on the 'publicans head to head, saying that attracting terrorists to Baghdad isn't demonstrated to make a US attack less likely. They were forced to get to details on WMD- only because the UN showed more backbone than the US population- and just lied. Of the three positions, that one is actually biting back, which shows holding their feet to the fire does get somewhere, even if they still do what they like.
    They keep trying the same approach with the Bush plan for the SS. We have to let the mass media know that it is not unpatriotic to analyze the details, as the media would do with the last elections' exit poll results.

connect with blueoregon