Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About it

This Spanish transcript reveals several damning things. The ones I picked up on are the following:

a. Bush intended to go into Baghdad even in the event that his second resolution was vetoed in the U.N. Security Council. In effect, he was prepared to break Constitutional law by violating the terms of an international treaty to which the U.S. was a signatory.

b. This transcript reveals that under no circumstance was Bush willing to let Saddam Hussein flee Iraq. Which means that his March 17, 2003, offer for Saddam to leave within 48hrs in order to prevent a war, was disingenuous. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq ...

c. The transcript reveals that Bush employed coercive tactics against potential dissident governments, in order to gain their support. He did not allow them to base their support or lack thereof based on the merits of the case alone.

d. Bush willfully ignores, or is ignorant of, United States complicity in some of the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein. Such as the United States being one of several governments who actively assisted his regime conduct an illegal war against Iran, by providing it with logistical support, military equipment and weapons, and material support for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#Iran-I ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_m ...

e. The transcript reveals that no amount of proof of disarmament could have satisfied Bush's demands for evidence of such. He viewed the diplomatic process as a cover for troop movements, and was not open to the possibility that it might bear fruit.

f. Bush views himself as some great protector of world freedom, rather than as a constitutional officer, whose primary duty it is to make sure the Constitution is obeyed.

g. Finally, this Spanish transcript reveals that Bush considered the capture of one single individual, Saddam Hussein, to be more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, 4,000+ U.S. troops and coalition forces, and the wounding and displacement of millions of individuals.

Less than real men are getting ready to attack Iran? Do the Democrats have the cajones to stop them?

LESS THAN REAL MEN GETTING READY TO ATTACK IRAN? DO THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE CAJONES TO STOP THEM?

Well, now that we've all been reassured that Larry Craig is not gay, we can move on to Bush's nuclear saber rattling at Iran. You remember when you couldn't turn on the TV back in 2002-2003 without hearing some NeoCon hack crowing that "Real men want to go to Tehran," right? Real men like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Jonah Goldberg, Peter Steinfels, Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, Robert Zoellick, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagen, Gary Schmitt, Frank Gaffney, "Scooter" Libby, Ken Adelman, William Bennett, Michael O'Hanlon, Rich Lowry, Martin Peretz and, of course, Holy Joe Lieberman? Actual real men-- and real women-- have been fighting and dying needlessly in Iraq while these war profiteers have been hooting it up back home. Every single one of them should be tried before a war crimes tribunal-- along with the dimwit who fronts for them.

And today, Dimwit, the lamest of lame ducks, with over a year left for causing mischief in the world and-- if we are to judge by the inability of congressional Democrats to show any resolve, unity or spine--nothing whatsoever to hold him back, was barking about Iran again. He's done such a fabulous job in Iraq. In fact, despite the doubled casualties for American fighting men (the "real men," not the ones he hangs out with) and tripled casualties for Iraqi civilians-- not to mention the complete destruction of their society fro top to bottom-- Dimwit will soon have the most craven of his pet generals declare that his failed and catastrophic policies in Iraq are not just not a disaster but that they are succeeding. Well, by all means, Mr. Presidunce, if you can convince the American public and the idiots who represent them in Congress that Iraq is a success, you have earned the war in Iran you so crave.

Although I have no doubt that if the whole world voted, the United States, and especially the Presidunce in charge of Decidering, would be declared the world's leading terrorist, Bush seems it differently and branded Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and raised the specter of a "nuclear holocaust." I'm in the camp that isn't positive that this is just Bush bluster. Today Raw Story cites a credible study that says Bush is preparing a massive strike against Iran.

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

...The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicizing the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

• Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

• Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

• The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

• The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.