Republican lies used to trick the public

[Skyhunter]

What? It wasn't because of the "smoking gun--that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud" nor the infamous “aluminum tubes?" We all know regime change was Bush's real reason, but that's not what was presented to the UN, Congress and the American people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#War_justifications
One could argue that regime change would likely result in relation to addressing the above, but I would remind folks that regime change is illegal and the main reason why the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to support the war.

What is so astounding to me is that during the lead up to the invasion I was telling people; Bush is exaggerating the threat and is going to attack regardless of what the UN does. After he did exactly as I said he was going to do, they denied that he did it. I never cease to be amazed at the ability people have to be self deluded.

 

[Gokul43201]

Don't know if y'all talked about this over the weekend, but now a DIA report says that the "intel" provided by a key Iraqi informer was known to be spurious all along. However, Powell specifically spoke of intelligence from this source, in making his case to the UN.

Watch the video on this page (middle right), titled "CIA experts: WMD intel source a 'liar' "

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/iraq.intelligence/

The day before Powell's speech, a CIA skeptic had warned about the defectors reputation as a liar. In an email reply, his superior acknowledges the problem, but adds : <transcript of email>"Greetings. Come on over (or I'll come over there) and we can hash this out. As I said last night, let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say, and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about. However, in the interest of Truth, we owe somebody a sentence or two of warning, if you honestly have a reservation." <end transcript>

More links on the Curveball fiasco :

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0402-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0401-10.htm

WASHINGTON — Prewar claims by the United States that Iraq was producing biological weapons were based almost entirely on accounts from a defector who was described as "crazy" by his intelligence handlers and a "congenital liar" by his friends.

The defector, code-named "Curveball," spoke with alarming specificity about Iraq's alleged biological weapons programs and fleet of mobile labs. But postwar investigations showed that he wasn't even in the country at times when he claimed to have taken part in illicit weapons work.

 

[edward]

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread so I hope this isn't a repeat.
It appears that the infamous Judith Miller had been providing information about non existent WMD. Long before the war started.

The New York Times publishes a front page story reporting that Iraq has attempted to obtain aluminum tubes which, US intelligence believes, were intended for use in a nuclear weapons program. The article—written by Times reporters Judith Miller and Michael Gordon—cites unnamed intelligence officials as its sources. “In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium,” reports the newspaper. “The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program ...” The article does not say that experts at the Department of Energy do not believe the tubes were intended for use in a gas centrifuge.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=judith_miller

Then the administration pumped the Iraq WMD story to Judith Miller, whose story was then trumpeted and echoed by Vice President Cheney on the television talk shows. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers and Condi Rice added to the tilt.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001074.html

Unless the investigators are given subpoena power these turkey are going to walk. For that matter what do politicians know about investigating something that goes this deep into intelligence agencies?

This entire WMD scam has been the worst deception ever perpetrated on the American people.

 

[pattylou]

This entire WMD scam has been the worst deception ever perpetrated on the American people.

It's still being perpetrated. John Bolton is talking about Iran's nuclear weapons as though the Iranians have them in hand. Iran has steadfastly maintained that it's interests are for energy development, not weapons.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1215220

We're in a somewhat similar situation now wrt Iran, that we were in wrt Iraq 3 years ago. Is the American public buying the line about Iran?

Naturally, I can't know what Iran's goals are - but to strike a country out of *fear* that they *might* be developing a weapon, is self destructive. We've certainly seen that in Iraq over the last two years.

I don't know that the war drums are beating for Iran yet, but it sure sounds to me like Bolton is drumming on it a bit.

 

[SOS2008]

Don't know if y'all talked about this over the weekend, but now a DIA report says that the "intel" provided by a key Iraqi informer was known to be spurious all along. However, Powell specifically spoke of intelligence from this source, in making his case to the UN.

...More links on the Curveball fiasco :

"Curveball" may have been tortured, but more likely paid. And probably still on the payroll along with Chalabi—another questionable source. (At least Former FEMA chief Michael Brown is no longer a "consultant.") If only I had thought of a way to get on the payroll.

Then the administration pumped the Iraq WMD story to Judith Miller, whose story was then trumpeted and echoed by Vice President Cheney on the television talk shows. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Meyers and Condi Rice added to the tilt.

And I believe all three of those Bush administration members did so the same, next day after Miller’s story ran—Not that there’s anything suspicious about this.

 

[Skyhunter]

And I believe all three of those Bush administration members did so the same, next day after Miller’s story ran—Not that there’s anything suspicious about this.

That is how they did it. Give a story to a hack reporter, then quote them on TV. It is the same way they attacked Clinton. Start a talking point with right-wing radio and then get a talking head on the mainstream media to echo it. Easy enough to make it sound like what it is not, without actually lying.

 

[edward]

That is how they did it. Give a story to a hack reporter, then quote them on TV. It is the same way they attacked Clinton. Start a talking point with right-wing radio and then get a talking head on the mainstream media to echo it. Easy enough to make it sound like what it is not, without actually lying.

Exactly!

And Judith Miller was one of the key players. After the so called Major Hostilities ended, Miller was embedded with a military team known as MET alpha. The team was supposed to discover the missing WMD.

From there she concocted the numerous erroneous accounts of WMD being found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28385-2003Jun24?language=printer

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 25, 2003; Page C01

New York Times reporter Judith Miller played a highly unusual role in an Army unit assigned to search for dangerous Iraqi weapons, according to U.S. military officials, prompting criticism that the unit was turned into what one official called a "rogue operation."

More than a half-dozen military officers said that Miller acted as a middleman between the Army unit with which she was embedded and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, on one occasion accompanying Army officers to Chalabi's headquarters, where they took custody of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law. She also sat in on the initial debriefing of the son-in-law, these sources say.

Since interrogating Iraqis was not the mission of the unit, these officials said, it became a "Judith Miller team," in the words of one officer close to the situation.

In April, Miller wrote a letter objecting to an Army commander's order to withdraw the unit, Mobile Exploitation Team Alpha, from the field. She said this would be a "waste" of time and suggested that she would write about it unfavorably in the Times. After Miller took up the matter with a two-star general, the pullback order was dropped.

An Army officer, who regarded Miller's presence as "detrimental," said: "Judith was always issuing threats of either going to the New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat," this person said, and MET Alpha "was allowed to bend the rules."

Miller's coverage of MET Alpha has drawn some critical press scrutiny for optimistic-sounding stories about the weapons hunt, generating headlines including "U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms," "U.S. Experts Find Radioactive Material in Iraq" and "U.S.-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical Agents." These potential discoveries did "not" bear fruit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Cheney today at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein

This rather ignore the entire point here. - the information on which those decisions were made, was biased. Also, no one implicity approved a blind and ill prepared rush to war. The time table was the presidents choosing.

some U.S. senators reached the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that the Bush administration and the Clinton administration had made.

Everyone agreed that Saddam was a threat. The critical and legal question is, was he an "imminent threat" to National Security. This is the key legal language that allowed for the invasion. Also, by no means did Clinton or anyone else support a nearly unilateral, half baked plan with no end game. That was the presidents choosing.

What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war

Again, if we assume that they [Congress] and we were mislead, then no one is contradicting their position. They are modifying it based on the obvious lapse in intelligence, and the unrepresentitive slant and cherry picked evidence presented to Congress.

the criticism threatens to undermine the morale of U.S. troops in Iraq.

First of all, any soldier will tell you that not all of the troops support the war. A soldier must and does put his or her political preferences aside to do their duty. So the idea that soldiers are like some glass shell that will break at the first implication of discontent is silly and disingenuous. I would say that finding no WMDs was much more demoralizing than why we didn't find them. Next, to suggest that we should avoid investigating a potential cover-up, lie, and abuse of power of this magnitude only makes sense from the point of view of a guilty man. FInally, what I have seen is troops demoralized by broken promises [extended stays], ill equipped vehicles, lack of personal body armor, and an insufficient number troops as needed to maintain control.

 

[Gokul43201]

Flashback :

Nixon ordered Cambodia cover-up[/size]

Richard Nixon told top aides involved in Vietnam to lie to the public about US operations in neighbouring Cambodia, files released in Washington show.

BBC News, Thursday, 17 November 2005, 08:12 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4444638.stm

"Publicly, we say one thing," Nixon told aides in one memo after his secret war in Cambodia became known. "Actually, we do another."

Just the left-wing media doing their thing again, eh ?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700113.html

 

[SOS2008]

Cheney today at the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
This rather ignore the entire point here. - the information on which those decisions were made, was biased...

I knew claims about Saddam and Al Qaeda were definitely wrong, and claims about WMD were very questionable. I knew this without any so-called intelligence. I suspect the Dems who voted against the resolution knew it was bogus too, and those who voted for the resolution either were duped and/or too afraid to go against the highly popular Bush in the wake of 9-11. This is the real story. As for Cheney, who has zilch credibility at this time, what do they hope to gain from their old campaign bashing tactics now? Maybe hold on to a small, ignorant base? Further anger the rest of us by calling us unpatriotic for questioning them--again? That will get them real far.

 

[Informal Logic]

What gets me is Bush saying the democrats are responsible for dividing the country. WTF!

 

[BobG]

As for Cheney, who has zilch credibility at this time, what do they hope to gain from their old campaign bashing tactics now? Maybe hold on to a small, ignorant base? Further anger the rest of us by calling us unpatriotic for questioning them--again? That will get them real far.

That doesn't even get them very far among Republicans, especially John McCain and Chuck Hagel. Hagel on Tuesday defended the right to criticize the White House's war policies in a speech to the http://www.cfr.org/publication/9220/?jsessionid=5665f1a6ab585084d03023e4d97878f9

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic—to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices. "

 

[BobG]

Off topic, but Hagel talked about another problem in the US, as well. When's the last time the US was 'officially' at war and how many unofficial wars has the US fought in the last 50 years?

The Constitution also establishes Congress’ authority and responsibility regarding decisions to go to war. The course of events in Iraq has laid bare the failure to prepare for, plan for, and understand the broad consequences and implications of the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and occupy Iraq. Where is the accountability? In the November 8 Washington Post, Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, wrote,

“Our Founding Fathers wanted the declaration of war to concentrate the minds. Returning to the Constitution’s text and making it work through legislation requiring joint deliberate action may be the only way to give the decision to make war the care it deserves.”

The American people should demand that the President request a Declaration of War and the Congress formally declare war, if and when the President believes that committing American troops is in the vital national security interests of this country. This would make the President and Congress, together, accountable for their actions—just as the Founders of our country intended.

 

[SOS2008]

Off topic, but Hagel talked about another problem in the US, as well. When's the last time the US was 'officially' at war and how many unofficial wars has the US fought in the last 50 years?

Here, here! Aside from the problem of unofficial wars…

In regard to the original resolution, I thought Congress was supposed to be provided with periodic progress reports. (What happened with that? A GOP power grab?) So I guess the new resolution is supposed to enforce periodic progress reports?

Has anyone noticed the difficulty in finding tar and feathers, or even a rail these days?

 

[Gokul43201]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/16/news/fortune500/oil_execs.reut/?cnn=yes

Did oil execs lie to Congress?[/size]
Report contradicts big oil execs testimony denying a White House meeting. Democrats seek probe.
November 17, 2005: 10:20 AM EST

At a Senate hearing last week on record oil profits, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey asked five executives, "Did your company or any representatives in your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy force in 2001?"

Each executive answered the question in the negative.

However, The Washington Post reported Wednesday that a White House document showed some companies did in fact meet with the task force. It said the document showed officials from Exxon Mobil Corp. (Research), Conoco (Research), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc., whose executives testified at last week's Senate hearing, met with Cheney aides.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"John Murtha is a coward"... who is "supporting the policies of Michael Moore"

 

[Skyhunter]

"John Murtha is a coward"... who is "supporting the policies of Michael Moore"

I like his Murtha's response to Cheney.

I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," said Murtha, referencing the vice president's long record of draft avoidance in the 1960s.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051118/cm_thenation/138198;_ylt=A86.I25.Hn5DsIIBiRv9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

The Nation -- When Dick Cheney, a Wyoming congressman who had never served in the military and who had failed during his political career to gain much respect from those who wore the uniform he had worked so hard to avoid putting on during the Vietnam War, was selected in 1989 by former President George Herbert Walker Bush to serve as Secretary of Defense, he had a credibility problem. Lacking in the experience and the connections required to effectively take charge of the Pentagon in turbulent times, he turned to a House colleague, Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, a decorated combat veteran whose hawkish stances on military matters had made him a favorite of the armed services. "I'm going to need a lot of help," Cheney told Murtha. "I don't know a blankety-blank thing about defense."


In the 2004 vice presidential debate, Cheney noted that, "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was Secretary of Defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee." The vice president was particularly complimentary over the years of the Pennsylvania representatives decision to provide high-profile backing of the administration's 2002 request for authorization to use force against Iraq.

But the cross-party relationship has soured as Murtha, whose concern has always been first and foremost for the men and women who serve in the military, has reached the conclusion that the Iraq intervention has steered U.S. troops into a quagmire from which they must be extracted. Typically blunt, Murtha said this week: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring (the troops) home."

Cheney's response to the man he begged to help him understand military affairs during the first Bush administration was to rip into Murtha and other Democrats who had tried to work with the administration. "Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorising force against Saddam Hussein," the vice president growled in a speech to the conservative Frontiers of Freedom Institute. In another clear reference to Murtha, Cheney said, "The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history."

Of course, it is not Murtha but Cheney who is rewriting history -- or, at least, attempting to obscure it.

 

[SOS2008]

Washington Post
Nov. 21, 2005

Vice President Cheney yesterday accused critics of engaging in "revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety" in the Iraq debate, in a major speech that reflected the uncompromising style that has made him a touchstone for many of the controversies shadowing President Bush.

Ha ha - “revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety.” It takes one to know.

"The terrorists . . . have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength, and they believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard," he said. "But this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists."

Some observers called into question Cheney's repeated description of the enemy in Iraq as "terrorists" who are seeking to control that country to establish a base from which they can "launch attacks and to wage war against governments that do not meet their demands."

U.S. intelligence agencies say foreign terrorists represent a minority of the insurgent forces; the vast majority are Iraqis. Classified findings by U.S. intelligence agencies are reflected in a study by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, released yesterday, which estimates that at least 90 percent of the fighters are Iraqi.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10133734/

“This nation” made a decision? If you look up the definition of “tyrant,” Bush and Cheney’s pictures are probably next to it.

 

[Art]

Well, well what a surprise. More lies.

It seems WP is classified as a chemical weapon by the pentagon but only when used by Saddam.

A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS” by Gabriele Zamparini (*)

From a declassified document of the US Department of Defense:


REPORT CLASSIFIED

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND
REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. cont.

http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/

There is a link to the actual report embedded in the article above.

 

[Art]

Another Downing Street Memo.

More lies in the making? The Whitehouse has dismissed a newspaper report in the UK which claims Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera's offices in Qatar but was talked out of it by Blair.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 22 November 2005, 17:21 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Bush al-Jazeera 'plot' dismissed

Al Jazeera has broadcast messages from Osama Bin Laden
The White House has dismissed claims George Bush was talked out of bombing Arab television station al-Jazeera by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The allegations were made by an unnamed source in the Daily Mirror newspaper.

A White House official said: "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response."

Ex-UK minister Peter Kilfoyle, who opposed the Iraq war, had called for a transcript of the alleged conversation to be published.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4459296.stm

It is interesting to note the people who leaked the supposedly 'non-existant memo' have been charged under the official secrets act. Which seems a tad self-contradictory.

Senior politicians in the UK are now demanding the memo be published in full.

 

[SOS2008]

Well, well what a surprise. More lies.
It seems WP is classified as a chemical weapon by the pentagon but only when used by Saddam.
http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/
There is a link to the actual report embedded in the article above.

How convenient.

More lies in the making? The Whitehouse has dismissed a newspaper report in the UK which claims Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera's offices in Qatar but was talked out of it by Blair.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4459296.stm
It is interesting to note the people who leaked the supposedly 'non-existant memo' have been charged under the official secrets act. Which seems a tad self-contradictory.
Senior politicians in the UK are now demanding the memo be published in full.

And here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153489/

Disturbing. No wonder Cheney and Bush are being so defensive—they know they must stop the investigations that continue to reveal their true nature, which is far worse than “irresponsible.”

 

[Art]

It gets better. It seems the British gov't are going to extraordinary unprecedented lengths to prevent this 'non-existant' memo from being published.

Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1648594,00.html

This subject is getting a lot of attention in the UK. It seems all journalists are concerned about the idea that members of their profession can be murdered for doing their jobs because some people don't appreciate bad press.

Many are also now openly questioning whether the pentagon lied when they claimed the bomb attacks on al-Jazeera's offices in Baghdad and Kabul were accidents.

The memo also puportedly refers to a heated disagreement between the US and the British regarding the battle in Fallujah. Hopefully someone will leak it on the internet soon as it is likely to be very 'illuminating'

The trial of the cabinet officer who originally took the memo is to be held in-camera so the conclusion can only be that it's contents are devastating.

 

[Gokul43201]

The trial of the cabinet officer who originally took the memo is to be held in-camera so the conclusion can only be that it's contents are devastating.

"In-camera" ? What exactly does that mean ? No public access or something more ?

 

[Art]

"In-camera" ? What exactly does that mean ? No public access or something more ?

In secret - no press, no public, just the judge and the legal teams.
Latest from Guardian Newpaper in the UK

Gagging for the truth
Leader
Thursday November 24, 2005
The Guardian
It is impossible to know if George Bush was being serious if he did indeed suggest to Tony Blair that the US attack the Arabic satellite television broadcaster al-Jazeera. The White House does not even want to dignify this "outlandish" report with an answer. The British government is saying nothing either, but it has charged two men under the Official Secrets Act with leaking and receiving a document, and threatened to gag newspapers if they dare reveal its contents.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1649442,00.html

 

[Art]

Wilson has given an interview to BBC radio in the UK twisting the knife in the white house claiming Blair was tricked into supporting the war in Iraq.

Bush aides 'double-crossed' Blair

Mr Wilson disputes that Iraq was acquiring nuclear weapon material
The ex-US diplomat at the heart of the political crisis in the White House says Tony Blair was "double-crossed" on the reasons for going to war with Iraq.
Joseph Wilson said he believed the Mr Blair had thought he was getting involved with a "disarmament campaign".

But "he was double crossed by the regime change crowd in Washington" and ultimately had "no choice" but to go along with a regime change war.

Mr Wilson told BBC Radio 4 the White House had "hyped the nuclear case".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4465810.stm

 

[Burnsys]

Well, well what a surprise. More lies.
It seems WP is classified as a chemical weapon by the pentagon but only when used by Saddam.
http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/
There is a link to the actual report embedded in the article above.

Nice Catch.. so, 2 closed threads and each time more info to support our points... i would say 3 times proved wrong, even after they closed our threads.

 

[Gokul43201]

That only proves that Pentagon (and in the other thread, the State Dept.) have lied to make their case...nothing else. Would the State Dept. have criticized some other country for use of a similar weapon(?)...most likely. However, WP is not classified as a chemical weapon, and this doesn't change it. Do I sympathize with its use : no way !

 

[edward]

How the Bush Administration sold the war

The Public relations firm, The Rendon Group, and Ahmad Chalabi and Judith MIller were employed by those who needed an excuse for the war in Iraq.

Link contains video and text

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/2011

JAMES BAMFORD: Exactly. Before he actually called these people into broadcast this information, obviously the C.I.A. had a big interest in this and the Pentagon had a big interest in this, so the C.I.A. flew a polygraph operator with his machine all the way over to Thailand, Pattaya, Thailand, which is south of Bangkok, and they went into a hotel room, they strapped up al-Haideri, and they asked him all these questions.

And they went over and over for hours his allegations regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and they came away with charts that indicated he was deceptive, that he was lying, that this was not true. And they flew back to Washington and, presumably, assuming this was going to be the end of it.

But that was information that was never made public. They didn't broadcast that information. So what happened was the I.N.C. and Chalabi decided to take that bogus information that al-Haideri was giving and broadcast it around the world. So, they called in two journalists. One of the journalists was Judy Miller, who was given the worldwide print exclusive rights to the story.

 

[AngelShare]

Here is another one for the list: If you don't support the war in Iraq, you aren't supporting your troops or country. In other words, the only acceptable position for any loyal American is to be pro-war.

What lie could be greater or more devious?

That one really irritated me...follow the crowd or be Anti-American. Psh. People usually feel the war isn't at all good for America and are thus looking out for their country's well being...how is that bad? What about how we entered this war in the first place? Didn't we, more or less, push and shove other countries into the same situation? "You're either with us or against us." Didn't Bush say that or something like that?

 

[Skyhunter]

That one really irritated me...follow the crowd or be Anti-American. Psh. People usually feel the war isn't at all good for America and are thus looking out for their country's well being...how is that bad? What about how we entered this war in the first place? Didn't we, more or less, push and shove other countries into the same situation? "You're either with us or against us." Didn't Bush say that or something like that?

Whe he addressed the joint session of Congress, September 2001 he said;

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html