When I received the following piece it was immediately filed for the IRAQ section. It caught my attention, because I had the same thought last week.
How do we know the WMDs won't be planted in Iraq and then be used as a justification to have the war? The manner in which this is written caused me to wonder if possibly the author is uninformed. There seems to be much emphasis on the party and the president, rather than a focus on the fact that the lies have been told by every administration/president regardless the party.
In checking out the website, I noticed they refer to themselves as 'progressives'. That has always equalled 'Communist' in my mind.
There are just a couple of statements I believe should be cleared up. As for the meat of this, regardless its source, it is well thought out and very possible.
1) Bush won't be planting any WMDs and probably won't even be told when it's done (if it is done). This plan is not Bush's plan, nor is it his war. He's a puppet and a front piece for the Zionist controllers. He's probably aware of some of the lies he tells. I've a sense, however, that -- like a mushroom -- he's kept totally in the dark and fed a lot of manure.
2) About his lies. He doesn't write his own speeches, nor does he prepare his own reports. From some other articles I've read this evening it appears the prince is being set up for a fall. And is being intentionally made to appear more stupid than he actually is. The same creatures who are in control of the major media are of the same ilk as those guiding, assisting, and advising the president.
The article is worth reading to see the list of lies that have been told -- and they're blatant lies. One would think even the sleepers would be noticing that fact. And now, we've just learned that Tony Blair presented a report that was allegedly highly-classified information and it turns out it was plagiarized from a student's essay. Colin Powell used excerpts of the report in his speech. It will be posted next.
Jackie -- February 10th, 2003
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_01_24_weblog_archive.htm
Friday, January 24, 2003
Seeds of Destruction:
What Keeps Bush From Planting Evidence of WMD in Iraq?
It was revealed today that the Bush Administration lied again about Iraq's nuclear weapons potential.
"When President Bush traveled to the United Nations in September to make his case against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what he called Iraq's 'continued appetite' for nuclear bombs.The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were 'used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'"
However
"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a January 8, 2003 preliminary assessment that the tubes were 'not directly suitable' for uranium enrichment but were 'consistent' with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks[.]"
This further bloats the list of blatant lies that the Bush Administration has concocted about Iraq. To illustrate, let's take a stroll down Memory Lane.
Remember this bald-faced lie that Bush used to terrify the citizenry?
"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. 'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' said Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman."
And how about this gem.
"Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending [nuclear] rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted."
In addition, Eric Alterman noted . . .
"[Bush] has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities...Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the US'. [This statement is] false"
Even the CIA admits that Bush is a liar.
"Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday. Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports that back the administration's line…"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence."
Let's not forget about the alleged assassination attempt on Bush Sr.
"A senior White House official recently told me that one of the seemingly most persuasive elements of the report had been overstated and was essentially incorrect," said Seymour Hersh in a 1993 article."And none of the Clinton Administration officials have claimed that there was any empirical evidence - a 'smoking gun' - directly linking Saddam or any of his senior advisers to the alleged assassination attempt. The case against Iraq was, and remains, circumstantial."
And finally, Calvin Woodward of the AP documents the following Iraq lies and distortions:
1) "Publicly, President Bush's officials are touting reports that al-Qaida operatives have found refuge in Baghdad and that Iraq once helped them develop chemical weapons. Privately, government intelligence sources are hedging on that subject, suggesting there might be less than meets the eye. "2) Contrary to the assertion by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Charles Duelfer, who was deputy chairman of the U.N. inspection agency at the time asserts, "We made the decision to evacuate."
3) Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that Iraq will have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." Cheney acknowledges, and no one outside Iraq really knows how close Baghdad is to that point.
4) Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaida operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government. "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented," she said. She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability.
5) Bush warned the United Nations that Saddam could have nuclear weapons within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney said: "On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon." The CIA's own forecasts have not conveyed that much alarm.
6) The administration characterizes Saddam as a supporter of terrorism generally. "Iraq's ties to terrorist networks are long-standing," Rumsfeld told Congress. Those ties are complex. One group the U.S. government brands as a terrorist outfit has been favored not only by Iraq but by many members of the U.S. Congress. That group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, advocates the violent overthrow of the religious government of Iran. It recently held a news conference two blocks from the White House.
7) The administration alleges al-Qaida operatives, including senior figures, have been in Iraq. But U.S. intelligence sources have said al-Qaida members are believed to be simply moving through Iraq en route to their home countries. They have not offered evidence these sojourners are putting down roots in Iraq, setting up camps or making contact with Saddam's government.
8) The administration, as evidence of Saddam's venality, has repeatedly noted he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s -- an event that barely elicited a response from Washington at the time. And one that, although known to US authorities, failed to shake US support for Iraq at the time. [See Saddam Hussein (pdf format), the book by Nita Renfrew, for details on that lie. - JP]
From these examples, an obvious pattern appears, that the Bush Administration will lie, even transparently, in order to forward it's agenda. Such brazen arrogance and the perception that it can get away with anything (which up to this point it has) makes me wonder what would keep this administration from planting the evidence they need in order to march into Iraq uninhibited by the international community?
Before we go there. Let's go here.
Earlier this week it was reported that weapons inspectors have found what appear to be "man-made mounds" in a field outside Baghdad. Good God. Say it's not true!
But alas, it is. Luckily, the "man-made mounds" seem harmless enough. I'm sure, however, that Bush was hoping for a little buried treasure in his "mounds" that would allow him to flatten Iraq and it's people once and for all.
In fact, as I read the story, I started to wonder, "What would stop Bush from creating his own "man-made mounds"? What would stop him from planting evidence on the accused to promote his agenda? He has done worse.
Think about it. Bush is willing to lie, cheat and steal in order to forward his agenda to destroy Iraq. To his disappointment, inspectors have found NOTHING thus far except some crated-up, 20 year-old warheads. Hardly evidence of an active program for WMD.
The other day, as Bush was crying about Iraq "showing no evidence of disarming" and whining about allies who inhibit his Iraq-obliterating, petro-pillaging agenda, his Alfred E. Newman features turned red with rage. He was about to explode. Iraq would pay for this.
The obvious and frightening conclusion is that Bush will do anything to seize the oil and perceived dignity that he believes Iraq has stolen from his family. It would not be going out on a limb to speculate that Bush would be willing to smuggle in some freshly produced WMD (perhaps some sarin or even a jug or two of mustard gas) made in the good old US of A and delivered through CIA outlets.
It's actually quite simple. Plop the WMD in the ground with a noticeable "man-made mound" for inspectors to find. Have the intelligence agency inform the inspectors of the mysterious mound and let the rest take care of itself. Boom. Instant UN approval. Instant decimation. Instant $5 barrels of oil.
I can read the press release now.
"AP - Baghdad, Iraq February 15, 2003 - Inspectors find smoking gun. WMD found in "man-made mound" outside Baghdad. Iraqi officials claim to know nothing of the weapons. 'Saddam Hussein lied to the Iraqi people and the world. He has been lying at ever stage of the game. It is clear that he cannot be trusted,' said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. One US officials said, under conditions of anonymity that intelligence suggests that plans were in the works to use the weapons on the US within the next three months." and so on.
Who, do you think, are most people going to believe (assuming "none of the above" is not an option)?
Again, the Bush administration has established itself as a group of shameless pathological liars. With this administration, there is nothing so outrageous as to seriously be considered a "conspiracy theory". Indeed, nothing can be put past them. They will do anything at any cost. They have shown that they care neither for the rest of the world nor for the rest of the nation. They care only for their agenda and are out only for themselves, their contributors and there cronies. If it is necessary to plant the seeds of destruction to forward this agenda, then so be it.
posted by T 11:50 AM
Back to Iraq main page | America's New War or War on Americans? | Issues Index | CDR Home |
