Did Bush/Cheney Torture Get U.S. Into the War in Iraq?
Writes Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the State Department under Colin Powell: "[A]s the [Bush] administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002—well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion—its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida." If Wilkerson's accusations are true, did the Bush administration coerce information out of terror suspects they knew to be false? Were Bush administration officials using evidence obtained from torture to support conclusions they had already made? Post your thoughts.
Previously: Did Obama Flip on the Torture Photos?
Reader Comments
The Real Axis of Evil = Bush, Cheney, Rummsfield
warmadeeasythemovie.org
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/main.html
SPREAD THE WORD AMERICA.....WE DON'T LIVE IN A TRUE DEMOCRACY TODAY BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT..SHUT EM DOWN...DO SOMETHING
"WAR PIGS" - BLACK SABBATH
STOP CONGRESS AND WAR PROFITEERS FROM LEGAL MURDER...
IMPERIALISM AND AMERICA = JUSITIFIABLE GENOCIDE..THINK ABOUT IT..LOOK AT REAL HISTORY
Can't tell what?
Dear Brad:
Agreed that you can't tell based on the evidence we have. However - what does it mean when you say 'Bush demonstrated a sincere desire to advance freedom...'?
It is my opinion that it is exactly this kind of thinking on the part of our administration that gets us into the Iraq/Vietnam kind of mess. We talk about 'rescuing' Iraqis from Saddam - however - at no time were Iraqis asking for us help (in contrast to the first Gulf war where Kuwaitis DID ask for us to go rescue them). At no time did the Iraqis say - come and make us a free country. Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney decided to become liberators for people who did not ask to be liberated. The result - anywhere from a 100,000 to 500,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. And while we can argue that most of these casualties were caused by Iraqi insurgents - it is also true that there was no insurgency prior to our invasion of Iraq. Hence - directly or indirectly - we remain partially responsible for those Iraqi deaths.
I still fail to fathom this rationale that we are 'advancing freedom' by bombing the heck out of a country that never posed a threat to us.
Have to tell
My friend Brad seems to want the castle on the moon offered by Carlo. It is obvious that the Bush administration was just looking for a scapegoat. He had tried using the freedom only talk but that was not sufficient so the only way was to cook up a false link with Al Qaeda leader who visibly is already dead since before the Iraqi war ever started.
Does it not bother anyone that the only tapes we have show a bin laden just in too good shape to be true? Unless he has some vampiric tendencies, anyone would think that such a harsh life would have left on him more effects than on the average male. Just compute his age and tell me whether the pirated videos you get to see on occasion (springing out conveniently when people start claiming he is dead) reflect even the normal ageing of any man.
The Bush administration has always used impudently falsehoods to justify their acts and the subsequent administrations will continue to unless the world starts asking them to answer for their shortcomings and apologize for their terrible mistakes.
advertisement
