WMDs - Words of Mass Deception

[jay_too]

yeah, i did catch wolfowitz on meet the press yesterday and heard him tell us the wmd information was murky. hmm...so is murky good? i think in the context of the war murky means wrong. why doesn't he just say "we screwed up and went to war for no reason....but to fulfill a vision."

i read this morning that yesterday on the fox entertainment channel for angry white men that he said that the administration's focus on terrorism is now iraq. huh? to protect america, i would rather the focus of terrorism be on indonesia, afghanistan, pakistan, and the philipines...in all of these countries in the recent past, there have been active schools for terrorists. let's pacify these terrorist training grounds. a second teir of states, with known terrorist camps and groups include egypt, sudan, and libya. in the third teir, ahead of iraq i would include algeria.

jay

 

[jonb]

Better yet, decapitate them by cutting off their Saudi funds.

 

[jay_too]

jonb..

good point.

this is a link to a blog of a pro-amerian iraqi working as an interpreter.

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

salam pax (peace peace) and other iraqis fear being killed for "collaboration" with the enemy. an interesting read especially if you start before the war...during the bombing he is not sure he likes the coalition...but then, i do not think any rational person would.

jay

 

[jay_too]

The Making of Mass Deception (a recipe for disaster)

It would appear that the Bush Administration made the final decision to go to war last summer. For administration staffers, once the decision was made; it was time to go in search of items to support military action. For them, Truth or Veracity? not a problem. Let's rely upon public fear and insecurity and oh yeah, patriotism. When they faced citicism of data, interpretation, and reliability of sources, the Bush administration's response is to impugn the motivations of those who want to understand why American service personnel are being put at risk in a country far away that may not have WMDs and does not a intercontinental weapons delivery system.

Today's Washington Post presents new evidence of the manipulation of information by the Bush administration in the road to war such as:

...President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied....

The ludicrous documents used to back the assertion that Iraq was trying to buy 500 tons of yellow cake (uranium oxide) from Niger have been discredited. The story of the aluminum tubes to be used in a separation centrifuge is coming to light finally. A technical mistake? Apparently not. From the beginning, I questioned the technical credibility. First, to build and operate a centrifuge enrichment facility to process 500 tons of yellow cake requires a massive, engineered structure capable of withstanding substantial stresses. Second, centrifigual separation plants require massive amounts of electricity for operation. Third, aluminum tubes are no longer used in centrifuges.

Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible....

In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that "it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently."

As an academic, Wood said, he would not describe anything that you absolutely could not do. But he said he would like to see, if they're going to make that claim, that they have some explanation of how you do that. Because I don't see how you do it.

A CIA spokesman said the agency does have support for its view from centrifuge experts. He declined to elaborate.

So why did the Bush Administration use misleading and wrong information in the State of the Union speech and presentations to the United Nations? Probably, because the American psyche knows the relationship between U-25 and nuclear weapons, we were being conditioned to visualize mushroom clouds over America; and fearful people can be manipulated easily. And, oh yea it is good imagery for speechwriters....other known instances in which the Bush administration considered the now-discredited claim that Iraq sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa.

Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible....

In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.
Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that "it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently."
As an academic, Wood said, he would not describe "anything that you absolutely could not do." But he said he would "like to see, if they're going to make that claim, that they have some explanation of how you do that. Because I don't see how you do it."
A CIA spokesman said the agency does have support for its view from centrifuge experts. He declined to elaborate.

Finally, the Bush Administration had a United Nations Report that detailed the destruction of the nuclear arms program by the inspection team. The misstatements on the aluminum enrichment tubes were made as a result of a sloppy but politically-desired analysis by Joe CIA (no last name). Joe's last name is being witheld for his protection and in accordance with federal law....as it should be. But it is a shame that Ambassador Wilson's wife (CIA) was outted (a felony) after his op-ed piece in the NY Times. Is the Justice Department investigating the outting of Ms. Wilson? I doubt it.

Shame on you Dubya. Shame on all the Bush Administration.

jay
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html

 

[13788]

hawl: "I am old enough to remember the '70's fuel crisis, the rush to make fuel-efficient cars, the skepticism about having nuclear power plants everywhere (anyone remember Chernobyl?) to power our stereos and big-screen T.V.'s, problems with OPEC, and the now arcane word 'conservation'. One reason we're always so involved in the Middle East is this country is after all these years both wildly heedless in its fuel consumption (like it's water!) and dependent on foreign sources of it. The Bush folks wag their fingers at us for being pro-choice, but there are no sermons about wasting electricity or driving gas-guzzlers."  In the aftermath of the "Great Blackout", I feel compelled to ask, who's this hung hottie who was preaching energy conservation back in July? :

 

[13788]

aj2181: [quote author=jay_too link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=0#0 date=07/12/03 at 17:59:30]or can you ever trust them again?

[/quote]


I didn't trust them to start with.

 

[jay_too]

I think that I am beginning to understand the foreign policy of the Bush administration in the middle east. The clue is Condi's speech a week or so ago. Apparently, it is not about regime change and nation building in Iraq. It is about regime change in the middle east and REGION building. Huh? Did someone mention meglomania in the Bush White House? errrr...make that Imperial Palace.

Reasons that I might be against such a clueless policy include: First, the estimates to stablilize and rebuild the Iraqi infastructure to the level that existed before the war are between $600 billion and $1 trillion. This is roughly the amount of money that might be required for universal health coverage in the U.S. Bush-Cheney-Delay deride such a massive transfer of wealth from the worthy rich to the middle and lower economic classes. But, this is chump change if it can provide massive, cheap and reliable sources of oil for the Exxons, BPs, and Chevrons of the world. Does Bush believe "If it is good for Halliburton (and Cheney), it is good for America?"

Second, there is the Afghanistan. How successful is the stabilization and reconstruction program? Not very. The Taliban are re-emerging; the warlords are as venal and powerful as ever; personal security is non-existent; medical care remains minimal; education remains rudimentary; and the list goes on....oh yeah, reconstruction? what is that? Such as it is, Afghanistan's economic driver remains the people of Western Europe and the U.S. and the heroin desire of the latter. So is the bill to create a modern Afganistan $1 trillion also? or just a $100 billion since Afghanistan does not have oil?

Third, what is the game plan for Iran? Oh yeah, they have oil reserves that could be nicely developed by Phillips, Oxy and whatever. Surely, right-thinking Iranians would want to share these natural resources with America or better, let America manage them. $1 trillion to subjugate the Iranians?....cheap at twice the cost. Then there is payback time for Pakistan and Indonesia....but what the hell, America's lower and middle economic classes are patriots and support anything to aid the super rich and powerful.

Fourth, I doubt that a democratic government can be imposed or nurtured in a region that has known autocratic rule for centuries and where the loyalties are not to the nation but to the tribe/family...where western ideas and ideals are viewed as hostile to the underpinning of Islam...where diverse and multicultural societies are equated with pornography, hedonism, and equality for women.

Based upon the recent past, I can guess who will pay with lives and lost opportunities for this new American Empire and its new aristocracy....errr, make that plutocrats. Yep, it is gonna be the lower and middle classes. Who will be the economic beneficiaries? You got it...the rich and super rich.

Call me selfish, but I would rather spend trillions of dollars on better highways, maybe on mass transit, education and social programs, and universal health. Oh okay, pedicures for the rich.

Now that the vacations are drawing to a close, I think the President and the Congress need to open a discussion on what are the national priorities: international adventurism or domestic programs. And let's be honest for a change Dubya.

jay

 

[jay_too]

Maybe I should start the definitive history of the Bush years. Title? Not a problem...LIAR, LIAR...whatelse?

from boulder

jay

 

[13788]

hawl: Have any of you checked out Michael C. Ruppert's semi-apocalyptic From The Wilderness site? www.copvcia.com I'm not sure what I think of it, but it definitely approaches current events from a different viewpoint than the usual left or right. Lots of conspiracy stuff, but calmer and more intelligent than other such sites. It provides links to interesting, perhaps overlooked, supportive information in the mainstream media. I very much like M.L. (or "Melissa") Rossi's The Armchair Diplomat site. www.armchairdiplomat.com/ She approaches world news from a more mainstream but extremely readable, often comedic perspective.

 

[13788]

oldman9x7: Ummmm no thanks - I've had my vitriol for today.

Gramps

 

[13788]

hawl: Jay_too and I have mentioned in this thread the not very publicized story (perhaps because it is such a hot potato compared to comparatively trivial but expensively pursued stuff like Whitewater and Lewinsky) of former Ambassador Wilson's wife's alleged "outing" as a CIA employee by 2 unnamed administration officials in retaliation for her husband's reporting of displeasing information. If it's true, what an outrage, and what a scandal! Anyway, if anyone was wondering about the current state of the story, Timothy Noah in the current Slate has an interesting article. Apparently, fingers are pointing at Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain"). If you're new to the story, check it out, it's more interesting than any episode of Alias I've ever seen. http://slate.msn.com/id/2088471/

 

[13788]

longtimelurker: [quote author=rrrrrr link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=60#70 date=09/18/03 at 21:33:37]Apparently, fingers are pointing at Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain")[/quote]

Interesting job - low hours, little qualifications needed and good pay... wonder what the benefits package is like....

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: Here's a very interesting and informative article on the Wilson affair by John 'There's a Cancer on the Presidency' Dean

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

All of Mr. Dean's columns on this site are first-rate.

(Off-topic: on the Fear and Loathing Criterion Collection DVD there's a BBC documentary from the '70's about Hunter S. Thompson. The documentary does, to put it kindly, a bit of a hatchet job on Thompson, but the high point is a bizarre, but cordial, meeting between high-as-a-kite Thompson, and Straight-Arrow Dean.)

 

[jay_too]

The lack of interest by the Republican President and the Republican leadership in the Congress in determining who and why [they] leaked the identity of a CIA agent to the press has resulted in an initiative by the FBI to investigate. [Probably, a career limiting move.] The agent is the wife of Ambassador Wilson who was sent to determine if the documentation (export license for 500 tons of yellow cake, uranium oxide) given to the Bush administration by an Italian journalist was credible. Wilson determined the information was not credible in October 2002 (report to Cheney). This spring in the NY Times he went public with why the documentation was a forgery. Shortly thereafter, his wife was identified as a CIA operative. Reporters identified their source as a senior administration official.

Outting a CIA operative is a felony. The Post reports:

Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility. [sub]Washington Post, 9-28-03[/sub]

huh? So I suppose that it would have been right and righteous if the leak would have destroyed Wilson's credibility.

I think America needs an explanation of why felonies are needed to defend Presidential credibility. Congress should step up to the plate and ask the tough questions.

jay

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: You're right Jay_Too. The CIA also has requested the Justice Department investigate. Hmm, I'm sure Kommandant Ashcroft will get right on top of that.

This is a major deal, I hope people begin to realize it. 'Outing' a CIA operative is a felony, and may, in some instances, be tantamount to treason. I hope they throw Karl Rove into the same hole where they threw John Walker Lindh and other traitors. The Washington Post reported this morning that no less than six reporters admitted to having been approached with the 'leak'. Only 'the Prince of Darkness' Bob Novak accepted.

Tim Russert asked Condi about it on Meet the Press this morning. She looked nervous and upset throughout the whole interview, and really looked thrown for a loop when Russert brought it up. This, coupled with the other abuses of power by the Bush administration,has the potential to be bigger than Watergate, although I doubt it will be.

Also on Meet the Press this morning was Dick Gephardt, there to remind everyone of why so many people hate Democrats: he seems to typify political spinelessness, opportunism, and mealy-mouthed vaccillation.

Monstro's on a rant!

 

[jay_too]

Democrats e-mailed a quotation from former president George H.W. Bush, a former CIA director, who said in 1999 at the dedication of the agency's new headquarters that those who expose the names of intelligence sources are "the most insidious of traitors."
[sub]Washington Post, 9-29-03[/sub]

well said.

jay

 

[13788]

Maximillian: I have a hard time turning this war totally political for a few reasons. One, I have to think of the people who have been suppressed by Hussien first and foremost. Those who may now have a chance to lead a semi-normal life without fear of being killed for the smallest thing.

So who gives a damn as to the motivation as long as these people are saved from this? This is being turned into a Bush Administration hate fest instead. Thats the whole trouble with this planet, so fast to hate, so slow to love.

Call Me a bleeding heart, call Me whatever, but I was there on 9/11 digging thru the rubble, dodging debris, hearing the screams, smelling the smells, reaching for a hand and thinking it was someone I could save and it turned out to be just that, a hand, nothing else. If I can look at this from a humanitarian angle and not be ruled by hatred/dislike of others or the government, anyone can. If you think you can do better run for office, I assure you it isnt as easy as you think it is to make decisions that the leaders have to make.

Think of the little kids who may now grow up smiling, able to play outside without fear, who may one day grow into the greatest leader this planet has ever known. Forsake the anger and hatred, there is enough of that already.

Remember, to err is human, to forgive is divine. I will not be checking for responses to this as I know the majority wont be positive from reading whats already been posted, I just had to put My 2 cents in and take another step in My healing from 9/11 and how it directly effected Me.

Be well,
Maximillian

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: Hmm, well, first of all, Maximillian, and I say this with good will and I hope you take it in the friendly manner in which it's intended: people may have honest disagreements about policy--especially a policy that impacts on the lives (and deaths) of millions of people. You may, of course, choose to ignore any responses to your post, but what is to be gained by that? Many people, myself included, feel passionately about the war in Iraq. I don't see how a desire for peace is an act of hate.

Personally I see opposition to the war as an act of love--and criticism of politicians as not an act of hatred against a person, but also as an act of love--love for my country. If you feel differently, I respect that, that's your right. For my own part I get a little acerbic at times, especially where politicians are concerned. It's just in my nature. It's not because I am consumed by hatred.

Let's look at the #1 fact: 1) There is no link between Saddam and 9/11. George W. Bush has come out himself and said this.

If this war was predicated hastily on incorrect information then that raises the whole 'Boy who cried wolf' syndrome. What happens next time an American President stands up in front of the American people and says, "We have a grave problem." I believe his or her credibility will be lessened.

Things do not seem to be better for the Iraqis, and doesn't seem to be doing much for America either.

I hope your healing process continues, and that you find the closure you need. But we all have been affected, one way or another, by 9-11. And you, and others who were in New York City on that day have my full sympathy and support.

We do not have to blindly accept anything and everything our leaders tell us. Yes, Saddam was a bad man and did terrible things--no one who opposes the war is Pro-Saddam. But the entire enterprise is tainted. It certainly appears to be designed to enrich a few men moreso than to be motivated by benign love. I hope you do read this and would want to join in a civil dialogue in this critically important matter.

 

[13788]

Longhornjok: Ugh, thank you Monstro, for once again reiterating what the Bush administration itself is NOW saying. No connection has ever been proven between Saddam Hussein and 9/11; as a matter of fact, Osama bin Laden was completely against the type of secular government Hussein represented. Osama's hope is/was to encourage fundamentalist revolutions in as many Islamic countries as possible, including Iraq.

I also have to say these boards are going to get pretty tiresome, pretty fast if posters say they're going to add their pov on a topic, but not check back because they might hear a different pov in response. That's not a discussion group, that's a graffiti wall.

 

[13788]

awellhungboi: [quote author=Longhornjok link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=60#78 date=09/29/03 at 19:31:12]Ugh, thank you Monstro, for once again reiterating what the Bush administration itself is NOW saying. No connection has ever been proven between Saddam Hussein and 9/11; as a matter of fact, Osama bin Laden was completely against the type of secular government Hussein represented. Osama's hope is/was to encourage fundamentalist revolutions in as many Islamic countries as possible, including Iraq.
[/quote]

Thanks, LHJ! Nobody has to take my word on it, though, here's a story from a (nonpartisan) source:

SEPTEMBER 19, 2003
Bush 9/11 Admission Gets Little Play
Story Doesn't Make Many Front Pages

By Seth Porges

NEW YORK -- Updated at 1:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

For months leading up this year's war on Iraq, the Bush administration implied that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The argument was well-received by Americans, and might have been the single leading factor behind public support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq. An oft-cited poll conducted by The Washington Post last month revealed that 69% of Americans continue to believe it likely that Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

No real evidence to support this has emerged, however, leading some (including E&P, just last week) to declare that the media had failed in its duty to correct the public misperception.

So when President George Bush admitted on Wednesday, for the first time, that there was "no evidence that Hussein was involved with the September 11th" attacks, one would assume that would be big news and an opportunity for the press to make up for past failings.

And according to some newspapers, it was a big story. The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune (both owned by the Tribune Co.) ran front-page stories on the revelation Thursday. But an analysis of most major American newspapers found the story either buried deep within the paper -- or completely absent.

Of America's 12 highest-circulation daily papers, only the L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, and Dallas Morning News ran anything about it on the front page. In The New York Times, the story was relegated to page 22. USA Today: page 16. The Houston Chronicle: page 3. The San Francisco Chronicle: page 14. The Washington Post: page 18. Newsday: page 41. The New York Daily News: page 14.

The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal didn't mention it at all.

Large papers outside of the top 12 that ran the news on Page One include The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The story was even more dramatic because Bush's remarks came on the heels of an assertion to the contrary made by Vice President Dick Cheney Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." When asked about the poll that shows Americans overwhelmingly believe Hussein was involved in 9/11, Cheney replied that he thinks "it's not surprising that people make that connection. ... If we're successful in Iraq then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Source: Editor & Publisher Online
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...s/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1982860