In the News

Harry Browne on What's Next

Democracy domino plan won't work: secret report

Were Neo-Conservatives' 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?

"Proof" that Iraq sought uranium was fake

War 'may bring more terror'

US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq

Army Chief: Huge Force Would Occupy Iraq

A threat on eve of UN vote

GAO: Justice Dept. Inflated Terror Cases

What Happened to the War on Terrorism?

Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq

Inspectors call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'

The Price We Pay

False Alarm? Terror Alert Partly Based on Fabricated Information

Bin Laden-Hussein Link Hazy

CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details'

Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out Nuclear Bomb Against Iraq
(This news article is no longer available. We apologize for the inconvenience.)

Our Claims

Claim #1: One of our radio ads asserts that Hussein has no nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction. How do we support this claim? And what if he acquires these weapons in the future?

Claim #2: One of our radio ads claims that Hussein has no clear ties to Osama bin Laden or other terrorist groups. Can we back-up this assertion in the face of Colin Powell's UN testimony to the contrary?

Claim #3: One of our radio ads claims that a congressional declaration of war is needed to invade Iraq, but doesn't Bush have that already?

Claim #4: One of our radio ads claims our government was told in advance by Hussein that he might invade Kuwait in 1990, but we did nothing to deter him. Can we support this claim?

Claim #5: One of our radio ads makes the startling claim that our government lied to the world before the last Gulf War when we claimed that Iraqi troops were massed on the border of Saudi Arabia, ready to invade. Can we support this serious charge?

Claim #6: One of our radio ads claims that the same people who are proposing the current war were also involved in the first one, and that their lies then should lead us to reject what they're saying now. Who, exactly, are we talking about?

Claim #7: One of our radio ads claims that Bush's plan to invade Iraq is not motivated by the "War on Terror." Can we support this claim?

George Bush, Lying, & the Dogs of War

by Harry Browne
March 26, 2004

"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war."
Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Harry Browne0

Before the Iraqi war, the Bush administration cried "Havoc!" and used a number of lies to justify setting the dogs of war loose.

The non-existent weapons of mass destruction and the phony uranium purchases from Niger weren't the only falsehoods. There also were lies about Al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq, aluminum tubes, Hussein kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq, unmanned airplanes that could attack the East Coast of America, mobile bioweapon laboratories, and on and on and on.

Once the war was underway, the folks who brought us death and destruction peddled further lies: the triumphant toppling of the Hussein statue, the Jessica Lynch story (she actually got a medal for bravery despite not doing anything), the bogus stories to explain the killing of civilians, and more.

It Never Stops

Now that the war is over, the discredited prewar lies have been discarded, and the administration is resorting to new claims, such as:

  • The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone.

  • The Iraqi people are finally free.

  • Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.

  • "The defense of freedom is always worth it," as George Bush said last week.

Character Assassination

And we need to add to these prevarications the character assassination the administration fires at anyone who exposes its lies by relating personal experiences within the administration. Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke have felt the full force of the government-press partnership.

The moment Clarke went public with statements that Bush was determined to blame 9-11 on Iraq, and that Bush was much more eager to attack Iraq than attack Al-Qaeda, the administration redirected the dogs of war from Hussein to Clarke.

Top administration officials have already appeared on numerous national news shows. Condoleezza Rice showed up on all five national morning shows (on NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and CNN). The attack dogs said very little about the actual charges, preferring to attack Clarke personally as a hypocrite who previously praised President Bush's response to terrorism.

Providing their usual support for big government, TV and press reporters repeated and discussed statements Clarke made in 2001 and 2002—statements that seemed to back up the charge that Clarke was an opportunistic hypocrite.

But did you notice that every reporter showed us exactly the same statements from Clarke? Some of the apparent "statements" weren't even complete sentences. Why did everyone who commented on Clarke's apparent flip-flop focus on exactly the same fragments?

They did so because those were the only fragments they had to work with. The quotes were all provided by the Bush administration—and they're the only quotes available. If the reporters had possessed the original documents, some of them would have picked out other statements or fragments from those documents.

It is very, very, very important to realize that . . .

Virtually everything we think we know about a foreign-policy issue is only what the government tells us.

We have no way of knowing whether the fragments are actually true statements Clarke once made. Nor do we know in what context the fragments appeared originally. All we know is that this is what the administration wants us to believe.

Even if every fragment is true and indicative of Clarke's previous opinions, it doesn't mean he's a hypocrite. What he said in 2001 or 2002 may have seemed true to him at the time, but has since been refuted by reality.

For example, Clarke supposedly said in 2002 that the Bush administration "changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda." But that doesn't mean the strategy did change. Politicians continually make statements promising revolutionary improvements that never come to pass. One year after making that statement, Clarke quit working for the government—partly, we presume, because Bush's actions didn't match his promises.

Fox TV News has provided a complete transcript of a press briefing Clarke gave in 2002—from which the above quote was taken. You can search the entire transcript and not find unequivocal praise for George Bush.

We have no way of knowing what Clarke really thought about Bush in 2001 and 2002, because we have mostly only out-of-context fragments of statements Clarke made—fragments that have been carefully selected and released by the Bush administration in order to discredit Clarke. And the press dutifully publicizes those statements without pointing out that they are necessarily only small, out-of-context pieces of the puzzle.

So let me repeat what you should never forget . . .

Virtually everything we think we know about a foreign-policy issue is only what the government tells us.

Other Postwar Lies

What about the Bush administration's postwar lies? . . .

  • The world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein gone.

Is it really?

Tell that to the 200 people who died in Spain two weeks ago—or to their families. Tell it to the Israelis who continue to be killed in Palestine suicide attacks. Tell it to the Palestinians who continue to be killed in Israeli military attacks. Tell it to the people in America who have been jailed without formal charges, without benefit of an attorney, without a speedy trial or the opportunity to confront their accusers.

Free At Last!, Thank God Almighty, We Are Free at Last!

  • The Iraqi people are finally free.

Oh really?

The country is occupied by a foreign power.

Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.

Its citizens must carry ID cards, and submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.

They must be in their homes by curfew time.

Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.

The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves—making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.

The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.

Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters—much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.

Public protests are outlawed.

Private homes are raided or demolished—with no due process of law.

Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.


  • Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator.

So what?

Is it the duty of the American people to give their resources—and maybe their lives—to topple every dictator in the world and make sure the Bill of Rights is enforced in every country (except, perhaps, the United States)?

And if toppling dictators is so important, why is George Bush cozying up to brutal dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan?

If George Bush wants to donate his own money to revolutionary movements in oppressed countries, he has a right to do so. If he wants to quit his job and go fight in one of those revolutionary movements, he has a right to do so.

But he has no constitutional authority to commit American money and American lives to the fight for freedom in other countries.

Even the claims of Hussein's brutality are suspect, because they come mostly from the same administration that has already discredited itself. The "human shredder" atrocity story has already been refuted, and who knows how many more of George Bush's favorite horrors will be exposed as lies eventually?

Say What?

When confronted with the charge that he misled the American people about the need to go to war with Iraq, President Bush replied, "The defense of freedom is always worth it."

Is that right?

Worth what?

The loss of more of our freedoms in America?

A cost of hundreds of billions of dollars paid by Americans for the freedom of people in foreign countries?

And worth it to whom?

Obviously, the Iraqi war was worth it to George Bush. (At least it seemed so until now.)

But was it worth it to the hundreds of Americans who died?

Was it worth it to the thousands of Iraqis who died?

Was it worth it to the families of those who died?

And what freedom are we talking about?

The U.S. was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. He had no capability to attack America, and he never indicated any desire to attack America.

In short, American "freedom" was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. So why is an unprovoked attack on another country considered to be a "defense of freedom"?

The Dogs of War

So the lies continue.

And the dogs of war are unleashed on anyone who threatens to expose those lies and seems to have the public forum in which to do so.


Radio Ads
Listen to our radio ads!
Share the Truth!
Click here to help broadcast our ads.

Add one of our banners to your website.

Use our form to email others about this site.

Download a TruthKit.
(Includes fliers.)
Email List
Sign up to get alerts and updates.
Harry Browne
"George Bush, Lying, and the Dogs of War"

"How Do I Liberate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways"

"Rule-the-World Productions Proudly Presents…"

"Support Our Boys In Uniform"

"Those Shameful Frenchmen"

"What can I do about the war?"

"A Little History Can Be a Dangerous Thing"
To the Point
Mark Fiore has used his talent to comment on many issues. Here his animated cartoons address three of the current war issues.

"Dissent Exposed!"

"What should you do in an emergency?"

"Why we must invade Iraq right now!"
Our Vision
"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul."
John Quincy Adams
© American Liberty Foundation ALF eagle contact us