CLASSIFIED 28 Pages: Was Bush Protecting His Lies For Iraq War? Is Obama Protecting Bush?

[eniwetok]

The Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee launched its investigation into the 911 attacks in February 2002 http://fas.org/irp/crs/RL31650.pdf and the final report was release in Dec 2002... that is all but 28 pages classified by Bush Junta.

The thinking has long focused that this section of the report was classified to protect Saudi Arabia. But what if Bush had another motive? And what if Obama does as well for keeping this report classified?

Late 2002 was a critical time for Bush's campaign for his illegal war of aggression against Iraq. The propaganda campaign against the American public had been intensified since the spring. Bush managed to get through Congress approval for a war if certain conditions were met. One condition was to get the approval of the UN Security Consul.

In December 2002 the US was at the UN trying to manipulate the UN Security Consul into approving new WMD inspectors for Iraq. But behind the scene Powell was pushing for language that would allow the US to invade Iraq on its own should Iraq be found in material breach of previous UN resolutions on WMDs. That ploy failed. In January 03 Colin Powell went to the UN to make the case for war. He never had much of a case and his dishonestly haunts him to this day.

And yet domestically the Bush Junta's systematic campaign of lies had worked. Back in 2002-03 about 70% of the US public believed invading Iraq was in retaliation for 911 and about 85% of the GIs going to fight in Iraq did as well.

Would releasing the FULL Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee's report on 911 in December 2002 have undermined the lies Bush was telling about Iraq? Surely it would have. We can understand Bush's motives. But why after nearly 8 years has Obama refuse to release these 28 pages?

We know that even before Obama took office he signaled he'd not investigate possible war crimes and illegal spying domestic activities by Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html

https://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/02/wikileaks-obama-administration-secretly-worked-to-prevent-prosecution-of-war-crimes-by-the-bush-administration/

Is Obama protecting the Saudi's or his decision not to prosecute members of the Bush administration? Is he protecting the illusion that those 4000 and possibly a half million Iraqi civilians died for nothing?

Like with Obama's refusal to go after Wall Street thieves and sociopaths... we may never know.

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Yes, and yes

and it will come back to haunt us. By not prosecuting the Bush Administration for war crimes, Obama tacitly legalized it all.

[LiberalEsto]

2. I hate to say this, but I suspect President Obama has little choice on this

I suspect the CIA, NSA or whoever told him to leave this strictly alone.

[eniwetok]

12. why?

Did the CIA and NSA also recommend that Obama not investigate the Bush Junta for war crimes and not prosecute Wall St for imploding the economy?

[Kelvin Mace]

13. The question becomes a who works for who?

If you are correct, then apparently Obama works for them not us.

[eniwetok]

4. Obama's accelerates US's shameful plunge into a government of men, not laws

It was John Adams who coined the phrase that a republic is a "government of laws, not men".

If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/john-adams/novanglus-text-february-6-1775.php

Oddly, we can wonder how he came to the conclusion that England was a republic.

Be that as it may, sadly the US has been descending more and more into the opposite and Obama has accelerated that trend beyond all imagination.

In recent history we saw this with Ford's pardon of Nixon. Reagan got away with Iran Contra. The GOP decided to impeach Clinton for perjury but revealed themselves to be partisan hypocrites when they gave Bush and his henchmen a get out of jail free card. But it seems the biggest violation of this principle is Obama who refused to prosecute any of the war crimes in the Bush Junta, AND has let all the predatory sociopathic thieves on Wall Street off the hook for collapsing the US and nearly the world economy... and he's let them keep their loot.

It's really shameful.

[yeoman6987]

3. I don't believe bush or more importantly Cheney will ever

Answer for Iraq. I think we'd at least have hearings with Bernie but Hillary will not touch the situation. So the next possibility would be 2024 for another president if Hillary wins two terms.

[packman]

8. The 75 year rule - hold it till generations pass

All the actors have died and it becomes a footnote in history with little impact on the current political parties.

[yeoman6987]

9. Ugh! I hate that and you are right

I'm not even interested in either one going to jail. I just want to know the truth so we never fall for it again. Perhaps new procedures for going to war. Perhaps ensuring the evidence is 100 percent and proven proof. Anything other then a blank vote and check.

[eniwetok]

14. constitutional implications

I don't doubt that someone is trying to bury these 28 pages for reasons that aren't clear. The reason I've heard is to preserve good relations with the Saudis... but when I finally checked the timing of when it was classified... it confirmed my suspicions that Bush wanted to cover up Saudi involvement and fabricate evidence to justify an illegal Iraq invasion. If the public knew... then all the public support Bush's lies had generated would have evaporated... except, of course, for the gullible on the rabid right.

But if this was additional evidence of criminality on the part of the Bush Junta... just what was Obama's motives for covering it up? I can see where McCain would have.

Obama constitutional obligation is to enforce US laws not to cover up Bush's war crimes. This and Obama's failures to prosecute Wall Street... and fully reform the financial sector are his biggest failures.... and I have to wonder if history will treat him well. But then, history doesn't matter if it's never exposed... or if it is, never makes it into the public mind.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

5. Is Trump running for President to avoid prosecution? Yes

[yeoman6987]

10. Due to his civil suit from the university?

At worst he loses money. Not sure what else you are thinking.

[ladjf]

6. Sans doute. nt

[ViseGrip]

7. It makes Hillary suppect too, that she is being protected here too...as she voted and had same info.

[eniwetok]

11. did congress REALLY vote for the iraq war?

Not that I trust Hillary... and she was certainly foolish to Trust Bush. But was the AUMF really a vote for war?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027740332 Yes, ONLY if certain conditions were met. But Bush didn't meet those conditions. He never got UNSC approval and he lied about the terrorist connection.