Australia Bolts Iraq Over Bush's Lies

File this under: When chickens come home to roost.

Ya don't wanna be pissing off a good ally like Australia. Of course its too late now. The next President will be saddled with this shit.

Editor’s Note: Even into the sixth year of war in Iraq – even as ex-White House press secretary Scott McClellan admits the deceptions used to justify the invasion – the U.S. news media still averts its eyes from the full ugliness of what happened in 2002-03.

In this story, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes the far greater candor occurring in Australia -- and cites the earlier whistle-blowing by members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which he helped found:

Matilda is walzing home from Iraq, and the Australians are lucky but chastened.

Lucky for having lost not one soldier in combat of the 2,000 sent to join the “coalition of the willing” attack on Iraq in March 2003.

Chastened because Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is now pulling no punches in decrying the subservience of his predecessor, John Howard, to Washington.

Announcing the withdrawal of the 550 Australian troops still in Iraq on Monday, Rudd echoed recent charges by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan about the Bush administration’s “shading” of intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war.

Rudd told Parliament he was most concerned by “the manner in which the decision to go to war was made; the abuse of intelligence information, a failure to disclose to the Australian people the qualified nature of that intelligence”; and the government’s silence on “the pre-war warning that an attack on Iraq would increase the terrorist threat, not decrease it.”

Rudd added:

“This government does not believe that our alliance with the United States mandates automatic compliance with every element of the United States’ foreign policy.”

Stung by Rudd’s candor, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino fell back on the canard that “the entire world” agreed on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. As President Lyndon Johnson would have put it, That dog won’t hunt.

If all agreed, why then was President George W. Bush unable to secure the approval of the U.N. Security Council, without which an armed attack on another country is illegal under international and U.S. law?

Among “coalition of the willing” leaders not named Bush, only the faith-based former British Prime Minister Tony Blair hangs on pathetically to the notion that “everyone” believed Saddam Hussein had WMD.

Its just one more fucking burned bridge that has to be rebuilt probably at a great expenditure of time and money if it can be rebuilt.

I'm telling ya, the next President hadn't better get within 100mi (160km) of a lie.

The only good things to come out of all this are it should be nearly impossible for the moron to build a "coalition of the willing" for attacks on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, NoKo.

And its also possible a few Republicans will finally realize they haven't had a principled, honest, intelligent, diplomatic man in the White House for nearly eight years.

Note: Headline links to source.