Bush says in his new book :
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had told Tommy Franks that Iraq had biological weapons and was certain to use them on our troopsAnd according to Bush , his Egyptian counterpart did not tell the world with that frightful intelligence because he fear of “ inciting the Arab street" !!
So based on a tip from a President , not based on his own intelligence reports he decided to invade Iraq !! It is still considered a unreliable tip because you do not go to war and invade other countries based on reports from another countries especially when you brag that you have the strongest intelligence service in the world !! Where is your intelligence service to check this piece of information !??
I am amazed that he took Mubarak’s warning enough to launch a crusade “like he described” where as his intelligence ignored the GIS warning about 9/11 !!! May be he believed in Mubarak’s super intelligence powers after the 9/11 !!
There has not been an official reaction from Cairo about this dangerous allegations despite this has been making news news across the globe today. There will be no surprise if there is unofficial gag order to mainstream media to ignore the whole matter just like in the Ruby Mubarak gate. I am having doubts that this stupid book by this stupid president will ever make to the bookstore not to mention will be translated
I do not believe or disbelieve Bush because simply I feel that Mubarak is the weakest link here , he is not popular in his country nor in the Arab world nor in the Muslim world and in the West he is considered a dictator not to mention by many indicators he is at end of his era so he will be an easy target. People in the Arab world will buy the story because they regard Mubarak unfortunately as an American agent without thinking. Knowing the financial wealth of the Bush clan , I doubt that he dares to put the blame on the real Saddam nemesis in Gulf Sates like in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
I find it hard to believe Bush because the man is a real war criminal and he has lied and justified his war crimes in many way and already he lied in his book about former German chancellor Schröder and claimed that the later promised him of supporting the invasion of Iraq while he did not so how we can be sure from anything he mentions in his book even if we hate or disagree with Mubarak and his policies.
Up till now I can't find a reason , a real one with my all respect to my friends on why Mubarak would say such thing in the first place , I do not buy that Mubarak was jealous from Saddam because believe or not many Egyptians do not forget what Saddam had done in Kuwait nor what had done with their brothers and sons in what is known as the coffins of the sun.
Some will say that Mubarak may want get more money from the States or that he wanted Bush to stop stalking him with democratic reforms in his own country , well the Neocons after the fall of Baghdad had larger dreams of a new Mideast including a new Egypt , did not they !!?? This did not stop them !!
I believe this time Mubarak will have to react.
P.S Again I believe it is Karma thing hitting Mubarak , you know the Mubarak regime official media was claiming day and night that Dr. ElBaradei was behind the invasion of Iraq because of his reports in IAEA about Iraqi WMD which is totally untrue according to documented history and here is Mubarak is drinking from the same glass the poison in even worse way : The Memoirs of the former POTUS which many will believe more on a wider scale !!
Technorati Tags: Citizen Journalism,Egypt,America,Arab,Books,media,Politics,Mubarak,Bush,G.W Bush,Iraq,WMD,Mideast,Decision Points,human rights,war crimes
i can believe easly that Moubarak did that
ReplyDeleteThe problem of us , we have short memory.
ReplyDeleteGo back to old press confrences of that time , you will have better vision of the tragedy
@Koko: even if he did that no one should believe that the president of the so-called super power launched a war, only based on Mubarak's opinion in Saddam and his weapons. If true, sad to say it but Mubarak was sticking it to Saddam, to get rid of this weapons and weaken him. Saddam did compete for sometime for the regions leadership and tried to take it from Egypt. In other words, the man was playing Bush for his own (not even Egypt's) benefit.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for sure, we as in the ppl of this region are made to live in a la la land. All of them sold us out. That is the reality of our situation. Official Egypt went out publicly against attacking Iraq, to please its crowd who would not agree with an Egyptian role in this crime, while our officials and some businesses were helping the US military campaign in Iraq.
This was said on Jimmy Kimmel (a comedian) show:
ReplyDelete"George W. Bush was interviewed by Matt Lauer who asked him if he would still invade Iraq if he knew then what he knows now. It's an unfair question. For one thing I don't know if Bush does know what he knows now." —Jimmy Kimmel
The Canadian.
Egypt has leadership in the region?! neither did Sadman wish for a leadershhip to 'take it away' from anyone. especially in the 90's with all the sanctions. gosh, sometimes we are worse than yanks in our stupidity. Mubarak doesn't care for any role in the region and he will certainly not tip Bush about WMDs in Iraq even if they existed, the only thing that shithead cares for is securing wealth and businesses for his family and friends. don't people think anymore?..seriously, dubya and his neocons went to war over a tip from a zombie?? only a complete idiot will believe that. Mubarak is indifferent about the war over Iraq, he isn't for it or against it..his only concern is to remain in power
ReplyDeletethere you have it
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328892/Former-German-Chancellor-calls-George-Bush-liar-memoirs-claim-Iraq-war-U-turn.html
http://t1ny.us/xmz38
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,728482,00.html
we need to understand that Mubarak has no significant role in international affairs, thanks to him, Egypt became a useless country on the international scene.. Mubarak is only there to obey their orders, anyone questioning that or living a delusion that Egypt has any say in world politics is a brainwashed twat. shithead is a Western and Saudi puppet..they allow him control over local policies only when it doesn't conflict with their interests."Egypt's role in the region"..pfft
Mubarak's comment discouraged rather than encouraged an attack.
ReplyDelete@Anon: for several yrs prior to his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam was competing for the biggest US ally in the region award. I didnt say Mubarak did this for Egypt, actually I made it clear that our own interests as a country were not the basis here. Im simply making the point that Mubarak had an invested interest in making himself the most important US ally in the region. We all know that in a post Kuwait invasion World, the Egy president and KSA monarchs are the US biggest and most clear allies. So, all that Mubarak did was to stick it to Saddam when he had the chance.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that any one who believes that Mubarak's words were the reason for Bush's war is naive.
It is worth remembering that prior to the invasion of Iraq there was no shortage of people saying Saddam had WMDs.That would include all the Western and many non-Western intelligence agencies. It also includes nearly all the leadership in both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US. The congressional vote to authorize invasion was less unanimous, but still overwhelming by the standards of American politics, 297 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. And the preponderance of the No votes expressed the wish to let sanctions work; let the weapons inspectors do their job; etc. The No votes were not an assertion that Saddam had no WMDs. Even the anti-invasion Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector of the time, didn't say Iraq had no WMDs. In fact he admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse games".
ReplyDeleteSo I just think it is important to remember that in 2002 the world assumed WMDs would be found. It wasn't just Bush and Mubarak. Mubarak's opinion would have been lost in a sea of general agreement.
Also, Saddam was known to have killed thousands of Kurdish civilians in Halabja using mixtures of mustard and nerve gas in 1988. It was also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though of course no nuclear bomb was built.
Hindsight is 20/20.
@Jason: All the stuff you mentioned about Saddam do not excuse the US and its allies crimes in deciding to invade Iraq. (BTW, where did Saddam initially get his weapons used against his ppl and neighbours?)Let's be very clear on that. The one country pushing the most for an invasion was the US, the main source for info presented in that historic SC meeting and defended by Powell was coming from US sources. What does that say about US intelligence? Are they playing the World and the American ppl for the personal gains of some who stand to benefit from the War? Or are they just bad in their job? Also, the US leadership decision was supported by a good % of Americans who did believe the silly story about Al Queda and Saddam link, how do you guys feel today when Al Queda is actually in Iraq and also Iran holding the highest power there?! In the U.K. the gov went to War against the wish of the majority of Britons and the result was that they were taken down in elections.
ReplyDeleteNow, the question that remains begging for an answer is: if US intelligence were as strong as proclaimed, I remember a saying that they can tell the brand of Saddams underwear, if the US had bought up enough Iraqis to allow for the invasion (dubbed as a victory) to happen, why couldnt they just take down the man, why the invasion? The answer in my humble opinion is that as usual, we the ppl are played as fools, behind the lack of resolution to the Palestinian Issue, the Iraq and Afghani Wars, ect is a multi-layered circle of ppl who stand to benefit from our misery. Mubarak might have said something about it, serving his own interests but he sure wasnt the only hawk waiting to feed of the Iraqi corps.
The US, UK and most of Western Europe helped arm Saddam Hussein with WMD, conventional weapons and delivery vehicles. A 1992 US Senate committee report revealed that the US had exported chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile-system equipment to Iraq, including anthrax, exported by the US Center for Disease Control.11 According to the report, this was done with the full knowledge of the Reagan Administration, whose envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, visited Saddam Hussein in 1984 to reopen US-Iraq relations after declassifying Iraq from the status of a terrorist-supporting state.
ReplyDelete150 western companies, including 24 from the US, have supplied Iraq with equipment and know-how for its WMD programmes since 1975. Iraq supplied this information in its report to the UN in December 2002, but the US vetted the material due to its "sensitive" nature prior to distributing it to the non-permanent members of the Security Council.12 A full version of the report was leaked to the press.
Even after Iraq's horrendous 1988 attacks on Halabja, which killed at least 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Iraq, and which the US and UK governments repeatedly cite as a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, western officials bent over backwards to play down the truth and significance of these attacks. They initially blamed Iran for the atrocity and "[i]n December 1988, Dow Chemical sold US$1.5 million of pesticides to Iraq, despite US government concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents." An Export-Import Bank official reported in a memorandum that he could find "no reason" to stop the sale, despite evidence that the pesticides were "highly toxic" to humans and would cause death "from asphyxiation."13
It is clear these double standards are being applied because it was in the strategic interest of the US and other governments to support Saddam Hussein when he was waging war with their mutual arch-enemy, Iran. Now that Iraq is no longer a strategic ally, it must be disarmed at all costs, using whatever arguments the public can be convinced to believe.
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/iraq-is-not-the-only-country-i.pdf
read Jason, read..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/Reagan_WMD_Saddam.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm
http://armsandinfluence.typepad.com/armsandinfluence/2004/05/the_theater_lev.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/99-003.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/middle_east/2973686.stm
The facts are the majority of people around the world were against the Iraq war. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described the war as illegal, saying in a September 2004 interview that it was "not in conformity with the Security Council." Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the invasion "disrespects the United Nations" and failed to take world opinion into account. Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa, called the US's attitude five months before the invasion a "threat to world peace". He said they were sending a message that "if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries"; a message which "must be condemned in the strongest terms"
ReplyDeleteAround the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of Iraq, polling data indicated that opposition to military action against Iraq was widespread in Europe, even when the government in a given country (e.g. the United Kingdom, or Italy) aligned themselves with Bush. Opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy, and also widespread in Eastern Europe. The Iraq war was also met with considerable popular opposition in the United States itself, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through the invasion subsequent occupation of Iraq. The months leading up to the war saw protests across the United States, the largest of which, held on February 15, 2003 involved about 300,000 to 400,000 protesters in New York City.
Bush repeatedly LIED to justify the Iraq war:
ReplyDelete1) Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
2) Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2003 but his "evidence" consisted mostly of:
a] forged documents: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html
b] plagiarized student papers
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/02/WeeklyReview2003-02-11
c] vague satellite photos
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/09/iraq1
3) Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
4) Bush repeatedly claimed that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The whole world outside the US knew that this is a LIE. Even the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
5) Bush said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches.
well the media in egypt at least one did report it. check:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/237150
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/ar/node/236784
This is not a revelation by the way, it was mentioned earlier by several american officials including colin powell, but it never got attention. i think it makes sense, if one understands how mubarak operates: on hand you would have done a favour to the US and on the other scare them off. invasion of iraq was not in Mubaraks interest. the fact that there was none is irrelevant.
It is shameful that evangelizing of Iraqis is not only being condoned, but aided and participated in by our military: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/the-great-commission-and_b_105306.html
ReplyDeleteMikey Weinstein, a U.S. Air Force Academy graduate, former JAG, and former White House counsel under President Reagan, sums it up in a nutshell: "The United States armed forces have unconstitutionally and inextricably intertwined and interbred their already dubious Iraqi mission with virulently fundamentalist Christian missionary organizations and defense contractors to create a pervasive and pernicious cabal, a fundamentalist Christian 'Military-Parachurch-Industrial Proselytizing Complex' as it were."