It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

50 Repugnant Lies that lead to the Iraq war and the death of thousands

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
SO, these are the people youtrust to run oour government? These arethe people you will be votong for in the next election b/c there is "no one out better" (crap answer). If you vote for Bsuh again, you deserve the hell on earth you will get.



1) Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair, televised address to the nation, 20 March 2003

2) I have always said to people throughout that ... our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair, press conference, 25 March 2003

Within days, Mr Blair contradicts himself about the aims of the war.

3) But for this military action, Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be in absolute control ... free to continue the repression and butchery of their people which ... we now know was on such a savage scale that victims number hundreds of thousands.

Tony Blair, article in 'News of the World', 16 November 2003

"Regime change" again becomes a central justification of the conflict.

4) You know how passionately I believed in this cause and in the wisdom of the conflict as the only way to establish long-time peace and stability.

Tony Blair to British troops in Iraq, 4 January 2004

No mention of WMD was made on this trip. But with Saddam now in custody and the insurgency in Iraq showing no sign of abating, the PM finds a new reason for the war.

5) As for the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, there can be no doubt ... that those weapons existed. It is the job of the Iraq Survey Group to find out what has happened, which it will do.

Tony Blair, House of Commons, 21 January 2004

Mr Blair uses lawyer's language, ignoring Iraq's claim that the weapons existed, but were destroyed more than a decade ago. His next sentence implicitly acknowledges WMD may never be found.

6) For reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction...

Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defence secretary, 'Vanity Fair', June 2003

The Bush administration made no secret of its desire for "regime change". Some were ready to admit that WMD was a red herring.

7) We know that he has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons.

Tony Blair, NBC TV, 3 April 2002

From early 2002, the PM began to stress claims that Iraq had WMD left over from before the 1991 war, without saying that most agents would have deteriorated to the point of uselessness.

8) Iraq poses a threat to the world because of its manufacture and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Jack Straw, interview with David Frost, 24 March 2002

Claims that Iraq was still producing chemical and biological weapons were prominent, though UN inspectors hadn't found any production of banned weapons after 1991.

9) It [the dossier] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes ... and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 24 September 2002

No such weapons were found in place once the invasion began.

10) I have absolutely no doubt whatever that he was trying to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction programmes. ... [Saddam Hussein] has always been intending to develop these weapons.

Tony Blair to the Commons Liaison Committee, 8 July 2003

Mr Blair switched to claims about weapons "programmes" and Saddam's intentions. No further mention of weapons "existing".

11) Saddam was a danger and the world is better off because we got rid of him.

Q: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still --

A: So what's the difference?

Q: Well --

A: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you.

President Bush, television interview, 16 December 2003

For Bush, the "possibility" of Iraq obtaining weapons in future was enough to have justified the war.

12) Already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.

George Bush, State of the Union address, 20 January 2004

Weapons programmes are now WMD-related programme activities.

13) Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminium tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

George Bush, 7 October 2002

The White House ignored persistent evidence from US scientists and the UN nuclear agency that the tubes were useless for centrifuges.

14) The British government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

George Bush, 28 January 2003

The CIA knew the claim was based on crudely forged documents.

15) We believe he [Saddam] has reconstituted nuclear weapons.

Vice President Dick Cheney, NBC's 'Meet the Press', 16 March, 2003

16) Q: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.

A: Yeah. I did misspeak ... We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.

Mr Cheney on 'Meet the Press', 14 September 2003

The VP took six months to correct his eve-of-war assertion.

17) The dossier shows that Iraq continues to produce chemical agent for chemical weapons; has rebuilt previously destroyed production plants across Iraq; has bought dual-use chemical facilities; has retained the key personnel formerly engaged in the chemical weapons programme; and has a serious ongoing research programme into weapons production.

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 24 September 2002

All the sites in Britain's WMD dossier were visited by UN inspectors, and found to be clean.

18) What we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax - 10,000 litres of anthrax - that he [Saddam] has.

Jack Straw, House of Commons, 17 March 2003

If the UN said it couldn't prove that Iraq had destroyed agents, Britain said this proved Iraq still had them.

19) Saddam has ... the wherewithal to develop smallpox.

Colin Powell to the Security Council, 5 February 2003

UN inspectors said there was no evidence Iraq had any seed stock from which to produce smallpox.

20) Those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.

George Bush, Polish TV interview, 29 May 2003

This claim about mobile biological laboratories, echoed by Tony Blair, was rubbished by David Kelly, who saw the vehicles and believed they were for producing hydrogen. They were built to a British design.

21) The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long-range ballistic missiles.

Tony Blair, on British Forces Broadcasting Service, 16 December 2003

The Iraq Survey Group had never talked of a "massive" system, and didn't link the laboratories with weapons production or research.

22) Is it not reasonable that Saddam provides evidence of destruction of the biological and chemical agents and weapons the UN proved he had in 1999?

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 25 February 2003

In 1999 the inspectors emphasised they didn't have proof that Iraq had prohibited weapons. They had suspicions that needed to be checked.

23) The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."

President Bush, State of the Union address, 28 January 2003

Unmovic said in March 2003: "It seems unlikely that significant undeclared quantities of botulinum toxin could have been produced, based on the quantity of media unaccounted for."

24) By 1998, UN experts agreed that the Iraqis had perfected drying techniques for their biological weapons programmes.

Colin Powell to the Security Council, 5 February 2003

Unmovic said it "has no evidence that drying of anthrax or any other agent in bulk was conducted".

25) If Saddam Hussein does ... readmit the weapons inspectors and allow them to do their job... then the case for military action recedes to the point almost of invisibility and that is obvious.

Jack Straw, interview with David Frost, 15 September 2002

When the inspectors returned to Iraq, Britain and the US said they were ineffective and were being obstructed, leaving force as the only option.

26) Journeys are monitored by security officers stationed on the route if they have prior intelligence. Any changes of destination are notified ahead by telephone or radio so that arrival is anticipated. The welcoming party is a give away.

The PM's dossier of 3 February 2003

"In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming," chief inspector Hans Blix told the Security Council.

27) I have every confidence - and I have expressed that confidence - in the weapons inspectors ... As long as this regime is in place, and as long as it is refusing to co-operate, the inspection process becomes well-nigh impossible.

Jack Straw to the House of Commons, 17 March 2003

28) The reason why the inspectors couldn't do their job ... was that Saddam wouldn't co-operate.

Tony Blair, interview, 4 April 2003

The inspectors reported they were making progress. Iraq was destroying missiles they had declared illegal when the US ordered the inspectors out on the brink of war.

29) Never once did I come to this House and say that I believed that we should not give the weapons inspectors more time because I did not think that they were going to get any more co-operation than they had had in the past.

Jack Straw to the House of Commons, 27 November 2003

The Foreign Secretary tortuously acknowledges that the weapons inspectors were getting somewhere at the time of the invasion.

30) There is no evidence linking Iraq to the events of 11th September; there is no evidence either so far that links Iraq to the anthrax attacks in the United States."

Geoff Hoon, 29 October 2001

This was before the war in Afghanistan to oust al-Qa'ida.

31) Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or individual terrorist ...

Dick Cheney, 10 January 2003

The White House concentrated instead on questionable connections between Iraq and terrorism.

32) There are things that haven't been explained ... like the meeting of Mohammed Atta [leader of 9/11 hijackers] with Iraqi officials in Prague.

Q: Which now is alleged, right? There is some doubt to that?

A: Now this gets you into classified areas again.

Paul Wolfowitz, to 'San Francisco Chronicle', 23 February 2002

US intelligence had established Atta was in the US at the time of the alleged meeting.

33) Mohammed Atta met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad prior to September 11. We have proof of that ... The meeting is one of the motives of an American attack on Iraq.

Richard Perle, Pentagon adviser, September 2002

If there was any proof, it would surely have been produced by now.

34) Iraq has trained al-Qa'ida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases

George Bush, 7 October 2002

This claim, four days before Congress authorised war, omitted classified caveats and warnings that the information might be unreliable.

35) There is some intelligence evidence about linkages between members of al-Qa'ida and people in Iraq.

Tony Blair to the House of Commons Liaison Committee, 21 January 2003

Blair had just seen an intelligence report, later leaked, which said al-Qa'ida was "in ideological conflict" with the "apostate" Iraqi regime, and there were no current links.

36) In the event of Saddam refusing to co-operate or being in breach, there will be a further UN discussion.

Tony Blair on Security Council Resolution 1441, 8 November 2002

When Britain later claimed that Iraq had violated the resolution, it said another Security Council meeting was unnecessary.

37) Resolution 1441 gives the legal basis for this [war].

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 12 March 2003

The opposite of his earlier pledge.

38) France said it would veto a second resolution whatever the circumstances.

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003

President Chirac said France would vote against any resolution that authorised force whilst inspections were still working.

39) The oil revenues... should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN.

Tony Blair to the House of Commons, 18 March 2003

Britain co-sponsored a Security Council resolution that gave the US and UK control of the oil revenues.

40) The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Commons motion for war, proposed by Tony Blair, 18 March 2003

Iraq's oil revenues have been used to pay US firms, often at vastly inflated prices.

41) Over some period of months, the Iraqis will have their government selected by Iraqi people.

Donald Rumsfeld, press conference, 13 April 2003

Direct elections are not expected until the end of 2005.

42) This is about building a new civil society in Iraq after 35 years when we know women were suppressed, and ensuring women have a voice in Iraq.

Patricia Hewitt, Trade and Industry Secretary, 16 October 2003

The US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has removed all the rights Iraqi women have acquired since the 1950s on divorce, marriage, inheritance and child custody, reverting them to the "traditional" form.

43) Iraq's ... got tunnels, caves, all kinds of complexes. We'll find them.

George Bush, press conference, 3 May 2003

This combination of vagueness and certainty was common during and immediately after the fighting.

44) There will certainly not be the quantity and proximity [of WMD] that we thought of before. [Saddam might even have launched] a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been.

Kenneth Adelman, member of US Defence Policy Board, 17 May 2003

The excuses begin.

45) It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them [WMD] prior to a conflict.

Donald Rumsfeld to the Council on Foreign Relations, 27 May 2003

Hans Blix is now convinced they were destroyed before the conflict - at least seven years before.

46) It is not the most urgent priority now for us since Saddam has gone ...

Tony Blair 30 May 2003

Finding WMD slides down the scale of importance.

47) In a land mass twice the size of the UK it may well not be surprising you don't find where this stuff is hidden.

Tony Blair, interview with David Frost, 11 January 2004

This excuse variously describes Iraq as "the size of California" or "twice the size of France".

48) We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld, 30 March 2003

49) I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgement.

Mr Rumsfeld, 10 September 2003

WMD excuse which is now most prevalent: we believed it at the time.

50) Q: But it is absolutely clear now that the 45 minute thing and so on, that the weapons of mass destruction idea and you've moved on to talking about programmes now rather than weapons of mass destruction. But that was wrong wasn't it?

A: Well you can't say that at this point in time. What you can say is that we received that intelligence about Saddam's programmes and about his weapons that we acted on that, it's the case throughout the whole of the conflict.

Tony Blair, interview with David Frost, 11 January 2004

The PM blames the intelligence.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...




posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Well what would you have done? Obviously we couldn't just leave things as they were.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Again jethro[small j on purpose]
What was wrong with leaving things the way they were? The man was no threat at all to this country. The imaginary weapons (told by Israeli intelligence) were no threat to our country. In fact as the whole unfolds to the U.S.(always the last to know) we were duped and in a major way. Lucky for you your from kentucky.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   
First of all, if I wanted your opinion, I would have said

"Ashley, why don't you come in and lay some cerebral waste on us again. Woo Hoo!"

Kentucky, honey, can you read? I live in Virginia, a little outside Washington.

Let Colonel answer the question because he is the one I asked, he has an opinion I can at least respect so if you can not find a nitch to curl up and die in, then at least leave the adults to talk.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Well what would you have done? Obviously we couldn't just leave things as they were.


why couldn't we leave things as they were? the last time i checked the US wasn't voted to be the world's super cops...we have our own problems, our own homeless, our own corrupt leaders, why spend billions of dollars fixing someone elses problems? it just doesnt make sense.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Thanks enormus. There are a lot of things that affect us. They are our problems.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Thanks enormus. There are a lot of things that affect us. They are our problems.


Why exactly are they our problems?

And if we are going to take it upon ourselves to go and police the world, why go after Saddam, on nothing but lies, and leave North Korea (who ADMITS having weapons of mass destruction) and Israel / Palestine (who both commit terrorism on a DAILY BASIS) alone?




Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Well what would you have done? Obviously we couldn't just leave things as they were.


Umm, perhaps tell the truth?

Although I suppose "We need to go sacrifice thousands of American lives and all of our international credibility so that my rich friends can add another Hummer to their collections" isn't very convincing to the people who actually pay the price.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Drama. OH GOSH, THE EVIL PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY WITH THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT.

Shut up.

Make a point or get out. The question, if you can read, was for Colonel. He's the one who posted the quotes, so I wanted his ideas dumb ass.

But since you seem bent on making your mark, I'll answer. Economy. We don't attack North Korea due to economic reasons, not to mention that it would drag in China.

Iraq was to preserve our economic security, and the fact that Iraq was falling apart.

I'd give YOU some facts, but you would probably say something totallly unsupported to further your points.

So, in for the time being, just observe this thread



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
How are more people not standing up and realizing that the US and "coalition forces" pretty much went into a country after lying to millions of their own people and killed many people for a reason that is bogus. Dont get me wrong, Suddam was needed to be removed, but i dont think lying to millions and killing others is the way to do it....i am glad Canada didnt support the US in the war and i am glad that our country has the balls to do that.....#ing britain and their ass kissing...how much further can they cram their heads up bushes ass??...



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I vote we get a new satanic elite to run the world, lets get rid of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds first...



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I'd officially like to thank LuDaCrIs for making a real contribution to ATS with his last post.

This is what I wanted to avoid, but hey, I guess I need to remember where I'm at.

It's obvious to me that no one reads around here.

Thanks for making a civil question into some ranting point.

You can all suck it



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Mood: Tired


hah, take a nap man! nothing to get worked up over. it's obvious that this is a discussion forum and people are going to comment on things, whether you want them to or not.


Iraq was to preserve our economic security, and the fact that Iraq was falling apart.


if you're feeling up to it, i would really like to know how exactly you feel this war in Iraq will preserve our economic security. i'd really appreciate your honest answer if you feel like giving it, if not thats fine too.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I will weigh in wherever I feel the need, KrazyJethro, regardless of how you feel about my involvement. If you want to exclude me, get your own board, and I'll willingly avoid it.


Now, about your claims.



Iraq was to preserve our economic security.


According to who? According to the people in charge of the war, as was wonderfully documented at the beginning of this thread, the war was about Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction, and the imminent danger that they posed to the United States. I have seen NOTHING from anyone (other than you) stating that "our economic security" had anything to do with it.

And even if it WAS to help our economy, it failed there too, as evidenced by the $540 billion deficit, which they've already admitted will rise (it includes no money for sustaining the Iraq operation).

So, if Bush really DOES care about nonproliferation and national security, doesn't it make sense that he would deal with the areas that are the biggest threat first? (read: North Korea). Not only do they have nuclear weapons, but they have them with the EXPRESS PURPOSE of using them to intimidate us. They are also a lot closer to the US, with unofficial reports saying that they have missiles that can hit San Francisco. They areclearly the bigger threat, yet Bush continues to ignore them. The only conclusion is that he doesn't care about nonproliferation and national security the way he claims to.

So, if the Iraq war was not about money and conquest, and it clearly wasn't about removing a significant threat to America, then what was it about?

KrazyJethro, I aim that question at you, and would appreciate a clear, coherent response which makes actual, valid points rather than one that is just verbal excrement.



posted on Feb, 3 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I agree about limiting verbal excriment. I'll have time later, I'm at work now so I don't have time.

Just a note so you don't think I am avoiding you guys.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join