Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses Washington's Blog

Newly-Released Memo by Donald Rumsfeld Proves Iraq War Started On False Pretenses

Everyone Knew Iraq Had No WMDS … and Was Not Behind Anthrax Attacks or 9/11

Everyone knew that Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff – Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – just said that Powell knew that there were no WMDs:

I wonder what will happen when we put 500,000 troops into Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and find nothing

(starting at 6:43 into video).

It has been extensively documented that the White House decided to invade Iraq before 9/11:

Indeed, neoconservatives planned regime change .

George W. Bush, John McCain, Sarah Palin, a high-level National Security Council officer, Alan Greenspan and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.

But war is sold just like soda or toothpaste … and so a false justification needs to be concocted.

The government tried to falsely blame the anthrax attacks on Iraq as a justification for war:

When Congress was originally asked to pass the Patriot Act in late 2001, the anthrax attacks which occurred only weeks earlier were falsely blamed on spooky Arabs as a way to scare Congress members into approving the bill. Specifically:


George Bush throughout 2002 routinely featured “anthrax” as one of Saddam’s scary weapons.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush and VP Cheney all falsely linked Iraq with 9/11 … and the entire torture program was aimed at establishing such a false linkage.

A new book by NBC News and Newsweek investigative reporter Michael Isikoff adds details, including a memo written by Rumsfeld in November 2001 – a year and a quarter before the start of the Iraq war – asking how to start a war against Iraq, and suggesting as one potential “justification” for war:

  • How start?


US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax?

The Bush administration launched the Iraq war under false pretenses … unfortunately, Obama is no better.


George Bush, Tony Blair and the century’s greatest crime

George Bush, Tony Blair and the century’s greatest crime

What US and Britain did to Iraq is nothing short of state terrorism

By Linda S. Heard | Special to Gulf News
Published: 20:00 February 18, 2013
Gulf News

It’s been almost 10 years since the US and Britain unleashed ‘Shock and Awe’ on the Iraqi capital Baghdad ostensibly to punish a rogue dictator for hoarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in non-compliance with binding UN Security Council resolutions. In reality, Saddam Hussain had shut down his nuclear programme and destroyed Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons more than a decade earlier.

UN weapons inspectors were almost certain of this fact and were on the point of giving Iraq a clean bill of health until they were leant-on by Uncle Sam. Indeed, the man who had supervised Iraq’s WMD programme for a decade Saddam’s son-in-law Hussain Kamal confirmed as much to CIA intelligence officers and UN officials following his defection to Jordan in 1995.

What was done to Iraq was nothing short of state terrorism beginning with 10 years of crippling sanctions that brought Iraq to its knees and were believed to have been responsible for the deaths of up to 500,000 children who died from malnutrition, lack of medicine and disease from polluted water supplies.

Rather than heed growing international calls to lift those sanctions, George W. Bush and his neoconservative band chose war which they and their British cohort Prime Minister Tony Blair then sold to gullible Western populations on lies too numerous to list. They were aided by a complicit right-wing media with Rupert Murdoch leading the charge, according to the diaries of Blair’s former spin doctor Alastair Campbell.

Blair was aware that the war would be illegal in the absence of an explicit UN resolution, as his legal advisor attorney general Lord Goldsmith had determined, but he went ahead regardless even as millions of anti-war protestors thronged London’s streets. He didn’t hesitate to sign-off on an intelligence dossier for public consumption falsely claiming that Iraq could deploy WMD against British interests within 45 minutes of receiving the order to do so — and another containing tracts from a student’s thesis published on the internet, typos and all.

Credible insiders who dared to challenge such nonsense such as weapons expert Dr David Kelly, who challenged the 45-minute claim, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who refuted Bush’s allegation that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger, and British translator Katherine Gunn who disclosed that the US was spying on UN Security Council members, were discredited.

Kelly was found dead in suspicious circumstances; Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA agent by a US government media lackey. Gunn was arrested for breaching the Official Secrets Act and sacked.

One of the most respected figures in America Colin Powell signed the death of his own career when he spouted trumped up allegations against Iraq in the UN, a presentation he was to bitterly regret, calling it a painful blot on his record.

World’s greatest con

In short, the war was one of the world’s greatest cons. It had nothing to do with Iraq’s WMD or the removal of a dictator; it was part of a greater neoconservative plan to ensure America’s global domination as General Wesley Clark confirmed in his book Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism and the American Empire.

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”

Up to a million Iraqis lost their lives as a result of the war and subsequent invasion and occupation; according to the respected journal The Lancet, over 600,000 had been killed as of July 2006, not to mention thousands of US and coalition military personnel.

Former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz announced that the war impacted the US economy to the tune of $3 trillion (Dh11.1 trillion). And for what! The only beneficiaries of this willful blunder chiefly perpetrated by Bush and Blair have been Iran that holds sway over the Shiite-dominated Nouri Al Maliki government and various terror organisations that have used western crimes against Iraq as a recruitment call. Today, Iraq is poised on the brink of all out civil war.

The Conservative MP and Minister without Portfolio Kenneth Clarke recently told the BBC that Iraq was “the most disastrous foreign policy decision of my lifetime … worse than Suez”. You don’t need Einstein’s IQ to realise that, but the Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot, and set up in 2009, has failed in its mission.

It’s been characterised by the British prime minister as “an establishment stitch-up”.

Where’s the public anger? American newspapers are running stories about the death of Bush’s pooch Barney and his penchant for painting while a tanned Blair has been busy accepting a Polish Business Leaders’ Award and pontificating on David Cameron’s plan to hold a referendum on Britain’s continued EU membership.

The deadly duo should be sharing a cell in The Hague awaiting trial for war crimes, but as we see time and time again, victors’ justice translates to no justice at all.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on 
Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at

Authority & Expectations New

Authority & Expectations New

Authority & Expectations New
Published on Feb 15, 2013

Smart and provocative young veteran, Wray Harris, unlocks the sufferings served by the Iraq war. Truth is, the military is full of Harrises, eager patriots irrevocably transformed by meaningless combat. In an overnight conversation between two who met at a demonstration (at which Harris was speaking) Authority and Expectations walks the wiretapped road to Wray's apostasy. Fourteen months he fought in Iraq, invading, interrogating, deteriorating. At twenty-four he doesn't reflect, he flashes. From step-dad beating his mom to death-metal concerts to a drunken call to the army recruiter at 3 a.m. Now beer in hand, pipe in pocket, cigarette in mouth he staggers through remnants and craters with the clairvoyance that only comes to a man of war. With hyper-intensity Harris pulls the distant into view, depicting our inflictions with verses of depth and curses of intellect. Make no mistake: one man's doing is another man's undoing: an overdose, a diagnosis, a discharge. . . . "Dead politicians," he utters, "not dead soldiers." Footage of the 20 year old in tears on base; of gunfights and body scoops; of a Humvee on assault; of a mosque under attack, the depth of his depictions bombing our senses till our inner pipes, like those of Baghdad, are ruptured, the sewage oozing from opened ears.

". . . superlative. . . No bullshit. Nothing else like it out there. Limitless respect to Wray Harris and the producer for a magnificent accomplishment."
- Traveling Soldier

". . . the most raw, intense, honest, brave, unsettling piece of creative work - and offering on Wray's part - that I have, honestly, ever seen."
- Ground Zero Center for Non-violent Action

"Veterans that see the light through the darkness have much to offer."
- Libya Truth Movement

"Wray is a powerful speaker. . . making some incredibly good points. . . damn nice work." - Rogue Valley Peace Veterans

". . . deeply moving. This close up of PTSD is something every American should see. Mr. Harris impresses me as an intelligent and thoughtful person going through hell yet willing to help others understand the evils of war."
- Veterans for Peace Chapter 1011

'I'm a monster': Veterans 'alone' in their guilt By PAULINE JELI

'I'm a monster': Veterans 'alone' in their guilt
By PAULINE JELINEK | Associated Press – 9 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, former Marine Capt. Timothy Kudo thinks of himself as a killer — and he carries the guilt every day.

"I can't forgive myself," he says. "And the people who can forgive me are dead."

With American troops at war for more than a decade, there's been an unprecedented number of studies into war zone psychology and an evolving understanding of post-traumatic stress disorder. Clinicians suspect some troops are suffering from what they call "moral injuries" — wounds from having done something, or failed to stop something, that violates their moral code.

Though there may be some overlap in symptoms, moral injuries aren't what most people think of as PTSD, the nightmares and flashbacks of terrifying, life-threatening combat events. A moral injury tortures the conscience; symptoms include deep shame, guilt and rage. It's not a medical problem, and it's unclear how to treat it, says retired Col. Elspeth Ritchie, former psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general.

"The concept ... is more an existentialist one," she says.

The Marines, who prefer to call moral injuries "inner conflict," started a few years ago teaching unit leaders to identify the problem. And the Defense Department has approved funding for a study among Marines at California's Camp Pendleton to test a therapy that doctors hope will ease guilt.

But a solution could be a long time off.

"PTSD is a complex issue," says Navy Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Pentagon spokeswoman.


Yes, PTSD is about guilt

and continuing moral conflict over having done something regretful or not doing something which one later thinks they could have done to stop a tragic situation. It seems to be a sort of survivor's guilt on steroids, where one stops their own cerebral life to some extent because they feel responsible in some way for a tragic unnecessary death of another. It is an existential and metaphysical dilemma for the one suffering from it, and is not about some life threatening situation in combat concerning one's own personal safety. I am glad the military is finally getting it and explaining it correctly.

The quote you show from the Marine Capt. says it all "I can't forgive myself," he says. "And the people who can forgive me are dead."

I would venture to say that most people would not cope well with real or imagined responsibility for the death of another that was possibly avoidable. Self defense is generally the only acceptable justification, and if it isn't the case there will likely be problems of conscience down the road for those involved. It has also been recently reported that a significant number of people who have opted for abortions because a pregnancy was simply inconvenient (where there was no medical necessity and excluding rape and incest situations) later on have the same symptoms as those found in PTSD.

Unfortunately, the leaders like Blair and Bush, who put those suffering from PTSD in the illegitimate wars where it was possible for these situations to come about, don't seem to be suffering from it themselves.

Washington's Blog is a Great Place...

Scorecard: How Many Rights Have Americans REALLY Lost?