The Bush black mark on American history is drawing to an end.

Today two Al Qaeda senior operatives in captivity put paid to the idea that Al Qaeda/Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were working in tandem.

And a friendly fellow in Toronto published this in The Sun:

According to intelligence sources outraged by the corruption and perversion of the national intelligence function for political reasons, the main source of lies and distortions about Iraq was Iraqi exiles, many on the payroll of the U.S. government.

These anti-Saddam exiles fed the Pentagon and New York Times a stream of phony claims about Iraqi WMD.

Though scorned by the CIA, they were closely linked to American neo-conservatives in key positions within the Bush administration.

When the CIA couldn't find hard evidence of Iraqi WMD a new intelligence unit, the Office of Special Plans, was created.

Intelligence community protests over this blatant politicization of national security were ignored.

In fact, two more anti-Iraq intel teams, led by Pentagon neo-cons, were set up and all three reportedly fed exaggerated information to Bush and Blair.

Similar reports came to Powell.

Meanwhile, neo-con writers in the American media provided agitprop for the war.

Many of the senior officials involved were members of the Project for the New American Century, a hawk-ish, far-right group close to Israel's Likud party that in 2000 (prior to 9/11) called for the invasion of Iraq and Iran, and worldwide American dominion.

Given the lack of WMD in Iraq, these red-faced neo-cons now claim the weapons were moved to Syria and Iran, their next war targets.

A few cans of poison or mustard gas and flasks of germs may yet be discovered in Iraq (or, more likely, planted there).

Even so, these are not weapons of mass destruction. Mustard and nerve gas are battlefield weapons. They are inefficient, and must be dispensed by special aircraft, shells or missiles, none of which Iraq possessed in 2003.


So, can Bush weasel his way out of his program of lies, because it was weak intelligence?

Does that justify the call to war on Iraq?

I thing he has hanged himself pretty good.

1998 and I have to paraphrase: The Clinton administration used this same intelligence to bombard Iraq with 70-80 cruise missles. Why?

Pictures of Kurds with tell tale signs of Mustard gas exposure-(late 80s)

Thousands of Shiite Muslims, in southern Iraq, gassed and genocide committed-draining the wetlands they called home.

Iranian military gassed during the 8 year war with Iraq.

And last question-who killed the most Muslims in the last 100 years? No not the US, Not Bush, Not the vast right wing conspiracy-

HUSSEIN!

But alas, facts will get lost in the hatred for conservatives and Bush

[Edited on 9-6-2003 by pokerbob]

Yes no doubt many in the Iraqi population and the civilised world are glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein.

But the point is not lost, that the reason presented for taking America to war in 2003 was the clear and present danger of WMDs. Its a lie and part of a broader corrupt agenda.

North Korea doesn't seem to be in the firing line except for diplomatic solutions (bribes).

Watch for the next round of lies and recognise them for what they are. Not a 'war on terror'. Just lies.

what really pisses me off is when people say we invaded Iraq to stop people being gassed and tortured.

what about the people in Zimbabwe today, or for that matter in Burma, what about all the innocents dead in Congo, don't kid yourselves the reason for the 1st Gulf War was oil, and the reason for this most recent war was oil too.

Wars are not fought for humanitarian purposes, they are fought for strategic and economic reasons.

It was clear Saddam didn't have any weapons, the moment we stepped into Baghdad. I had to laugh when Mike O'Brian (Foreign office minister) came on Question Time, and said that Saddam may have chosen not to use his weapons of mass destruction because of the consequences he would face, i can't believe he expected us to buy that, luckily my mate Mark Steel from the Indie was sitting next to him to point out how rediculous a statement it was.

Korea or Zimbabwe have no oil, that's why.



[Edited on 12-6-2003 by Salem]

Your mask must come with a blindfold. How can you possibly say that mustard gas isn't a weapon of mass destruction???

Please explain to me what a weapon of mass destruction is then. If you cannot understand why we haven't found these weapons then I strongly suggest that you read a book called "The Nuclear Barons"(1980).

That book shows how these weapons are almost impossible to find. Please do some research before you come to such ignorant conclusions. I don't mean that in a abusive way at all either. I just want you to know that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please think before you speak.


Abraham

AV

1. No blindfolds on me.

2. The conclusions published in the Toronto Sun article I posted are not mine.

3. The author says, cynically, that they will likely find a few planted containers of mustard gas.

4. Bush and his cronies said, unequivocally, that they knew precisely the locations of both stockpiles of WMDs and their manufacturing facilities. They knowingly lied. Listen carefully next time they open their mouths and lie to you.

Case closed.

see what happens when white powerful men hold office...we get nothing but lies and destruction. savages

lets get some females into the oval office..and i dont mean under a desk.

I will admit that their claims of positivity were totally corrupt but that doesn't mean that they were lying. They only said something that they knew they couldn't conclusively prove or back up due to the flexability of the capability of transporting these weapons. Bush must have known that once he had claimed such a thing that his claims would only be undermined by the Iraqi Regime.

The Iraqi's followed every move we made and are quite capable of keeping us at bay. Bush merely said he had knowledge, not that he was promissing he could prove it.

Please read that book, I know you will enjoy it very much. Then again if you are so scared of these weapons then it just may make your life even more worrisome. For that books blows the lid of the conspiracy jars.

Nuclear weapons are just as hard to control as drugs are. That book will teach you that and a whole lot more. I highly suggest it to all that come here on ATS.


By the way, you should be more clear when you are posting someone else's work. You don't want to catch the wrath of others due to some other guys' words. In your post you cannot really tell where his opinion starts and where your's begins. Try to be more clear next time.

So what do you think about these weapons???

Do you think that they are a threat to the world???

Do you think that Saddam and his boys have the means to threaten us and others with them in the near future, or do you think that the WMD thing is just more lunatic conspiracy paranoia??????

[Edited on 12-6-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

Condoleeza Rice is a rich black female crony liar in the Bush administration.

I don't think it's a gender issue at all, but feel free to support Hilary Clinton who could no doubt do 500% better than the current administration in every aspect of economic management.

(Departs, hearing dogs barking and angry squeals from stupid white men).

Originally posted by pokerbob
1998 and I have to paraphrase: The Clinton administration used this same intelligence to bombard Iraq with 70-80 cruise missles. Why?

Pictures of Kurds with tell tale signs of Mustard gas exposure-(late 80s)

Thousands of Shiite Muslims, in southern Iraq, gassed and genocide committed-draining the wetlands they called home.

Iranian military gassed during the 8 year war with Iraq.

And last question-who killed the most Muslims in the last 100 years? No not the US, Not Bush, Not the vast right wing conspiracy-

HUSSEIN!

But alas, facts will get lost in the hatred for conservatives and Bush

[Edited on 9-6-2003 by pokerbob]

LOL Why are people always soooo selective, and narrow minded ? Just tell us you hate Saddam and you Love Bush, that will save you some useless typework.

First of all those "facts" of yours aren't "facts" because they are things that are "said" or "believed". I am 100% sure that you never been to Iraq and investigate those claims by yourself...right ? Or have you done any kind of investigation to verify those claims ? If yes can I have a copy of your investigation ?