RSS
Home
Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
We hold these Truths to be self-evident
Some Americans justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well-intended interventions for the good of their people, and the security of our nation and the world. They believe that the President MUST have had evidence of national security risk before taking the last and dire step of invasion.
This is a crucial point. If there was credible evidence of imminent threat to US national security, then the wars were justified under the UN Charter for self-defense. However, if the evidence was not credible, or fabricated, then these wars are illegal Wars of Aggression. So which is it?
Americans and the world no longer need BELIEVE anything; the specific evidence used to justify invading two countries is now public knowledge. All we have to do is match the government's claims to the exact evidence and you can decide for yourself. This article lays it out.
First, as you may recall, there were four basic claims of fact presented by political "leadership" to invade Iraq:
1. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.
2. The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.
3. Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.
4. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
Here's what we know about the evidence from which those claims were made. This is the summary; for my complete briefing, read here, here, and browse here.
1. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports "never said there was an imminent threat." This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world's most powerful military.
2. The Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used as centrifuges to refine fissionable material for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for conventional use, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for other purposes. The Senate Committee on Intelligence agreed that this claim had no basis from any available evidence. See also here.
3. This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the "Niger documents." These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s likely that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA.
4. As to the claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all US intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed (and here).
As for Afghanistan, after the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”
My analysis: as you may know, Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939 under the lie of self-defense, staging a false-flag attack. A false-flag attack is when you attack yourself disguised as an enemy you want to create public opinion to attack. This was called Operation Himmler. The only difference between now and then is that the US false-threat invasion has not yet resulted in another world war.
And for those of you with "hope" for "change," please answer: are the Democratic "leadership" ignorant of their own Congressional committee reports spelling-out the documentation cited in this article? That's impossible, yes? Then the reason President Obama and majority of Dems do not communicate the above facts to the American public is....?
Did you answer "criminal complicity?" Since both parties are in way too deep to prosecute, my policy suggestion is Truth and Reconciliation. This can peel-away the people wanting a "Scrooge conversion" and make the best deal possible for all: we get the truth, an end to criminality, an end to our paying trillions for destruction (this needs application into high finance, also), return of stolen assets, and the least risk of bloodshed. The criminals get to live out whatever's left of their lives in peace.
Below is the best artistic video I've found describing the above documentation. Warning: brief adult language.
As always, please share this article with all who say they want to be competent citizens. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it's free).
Related Articles:
Comments
