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.

 

WHITE HOUSE: WE LIED

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

abcnews.go.com...

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people it was overemphasizing the danger from the weapons they claimed represented an imminent threat - in order to gain support for committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths?

Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins.

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people it "might not find" the weapons the regime claim represented the reason for committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths?

Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths to "flex US muscle" in the Middle East - and not in response to an imminent threat?

The Bush administration wanted to make a statement about its determination to fight terrorism.

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths in order to "make a statement" - and not in response to an imminent threat?

And officials acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect target.

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths to target an individual that made a "perfect" symbol - and not in response to an imminent threat?

One official said that in the end, history and the American people will judge the United States not by whether U.S. officials find canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent.

History will judge the United States, the official said, by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America.

So why didn't the Bush Regime tell the American people it would be committing mass slaughter in their name and sending their loved ones to their deaths as a gamble - and not in response to an imminent threat?

Could it be that the Bush Regime knew the American people would not allow the slaughter of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the uneeded deaths of 100's US servicemen, and the destruction of a country in their name - on the basis of a muddled collection of unsupported hunches, gambles, and lies?

Could it be the unelected and illegitimate election thief and his regime hold the American people in contempt, and believe that the people, whose loved ones would be ordered to their deaths, cannot be trusted to award the regime the power and support to which it is entitled? Just as they couldn't be trusted to have given the regime sufficient votes to which it was entitled?

Could it be that the Bush Regime knew the risk was just too high that the American people would see through even the flimsy justification of rolling the dice blindly and hoping "history shows" a positive outcome at some point - right through to the more obvious motives of profit and political gain?


Everyone with any sense wanted Saddam disposed of, just the more sensible folks saw the crony capitalism as the root cause of the immediate war posture. Since all the 'noble' justifications are falling by the wayside as each day passes, remember the groups that will profit
listed here: www.digitalf8.com...




posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I have always wondered just who these "officials"are.
They never say who they are.Could it be they really don't know anything.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 06:04 PM
link   
f-ing a-hole's ... why the fug would they fugging admit they lied?!?! God damned faggot Bush ruined this country. RUINED IT !!! What a #ing joke !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 06:16 PM
link   
you think Bush is purposely ruining this country? Morons. HE ISN'T RUINING IT AT ALL!!!!! AND THEY DECLARED WAR JUST TO SEND SOLDIERS TO THEIR DEATHS?????


Morons. You have been brain washed by the liberals.

[Edited on 25-4-2003 by mouko_ryuu]



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Mouku, your the one brainwashed with your so called American Patriotism and your pro-war status.

Bush followers I will never understand because they will be shown the evidence right in front of their face and still deny it.

US Officials said they lied. Would they lie about lying? Especially this kind of lie? I think not.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Mouku, your the one brainwashed with your so called American Patriotism and your pro-war status.

Bush followers I will never understand because they will be shown the evidence right in front of their face and still deny it.

US Officials said they lied. Would they lie about lying? Especially this kind of lie? I think not.


people follow this man with bllind faith. Even when you tell them about his past and his familes evil past they still won't listen.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 07:10 PM
link   
e-nonymous, calm down man. First off, even if Bush did exaggerate about the WMD do you think he and Admin is stupid enough to admit to it? (For some of you don't even answer this one) And even if we don't find any WMD you still have to look at the positives -A brutal dictator is out of power -The Iraqi people are "free" -No more "safe Heaven's" for terrorists/no more finical and armory support to terrorists from Iraq. I personally still think we will find WMD, just be patient.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 07:54 PM
link   
MM,

Problem is ... Bush did lie. Hell, that new's article even said he lied. They admited to lying for crying out loud! Can't get any clearer than that ...

mouko_ryuu,

Well ... look's like he is doing it. Why? Couldn't tell ya. But when you tell the whole world to screw ... do you do that accidently? Nah ... Didn't think so.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 09:05 PM
link   
That's exactly right e-nonymous, the news article claimed Bush was lying, actually they even said, "We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." Just because the news article says doesn't mean its 100% right. Also, how reliable are these so-called White House and Pentagon "officials"? You can get a handful of them that say Bush was lying and a handful that says he isn't, it all depends on who you decide to talk to.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 09:11 PM
link   
So, who was the better president, Bush or Clinton? I know what you liberal-wacko-commies will say. Clinton. Sure, Cliton gets his knob shined in the oral office, he is a hero. Bush liberates the Iraqis, and he is the bad guy. CLINTON WOULDN'T HAVE GONE OVER THERE!!! But you don't care. You all ignore the fact that people of Iraq are free. YOU IGNORE IT!!!


And Illmatic67, or whoever has that Malcom X picture, I don't take you seriously, because in the 10 minutes left post, you said you'd use 10 minutes to have sex with a WHITE girl. This is extremly bigotted and racist. Double standards.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 10:51 PM
link   
What this article implies is that someone in the administrative department of the US government is making claims which the author is not prepared to support by providing more informations on who they
are.

A common catch phrase used by the press is "administrative officials close to the white houses Inner circle" is not even applied here. It has already been claimed that Saddam Hussein may have destroyed some of his WMD on, before or during the war. Clearly that does not mean the administration of the US government was lying.

About time as far as who is lying would suggest you look in a mirror.


This article belongs on a tabloid right next to my mother was an alien.





[Edited on 26-4-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mouko_ryuu
So, who was the better president, Bush or Clinton? I know what you liberal-wacko-commies will say. Clinton. Sure, Cliton gets his knob shined in the oral office, he is a hero. Bush liberates the Iraqis, and he is the bad guy. CLINTON WOULDN'T HAVE GONE OVER THERE!!! But you don't care. You all ignore the fact that people of Iraq are free. YOU IGNORE IT!!!


And Illmatic67, or whoever has that Malcom X picture, I don't take you seriously, because in the 10 minutes left post, you said you'd use 10 minutes to have sex with a WHITE girl. This is extremly bigotted and racist. Double standards.


LoL, you think I care if you won't take me seriously? That's good for me, that's one less person off my back. And for your information, it was only a joke but I dont have to explain myself to you.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mouko_ryuu

And Illmatic67, or whoever has that Malcom X picture, I don't take you seriously, because in the 10 minutes left post, you said you'd use 10 minutes to have sex with a WHITE girl. This is extremly bigotted and racist. Double standards.


What does that have to do with anything? I'd choose a white girl, too.



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 05:56 AM
link   
MM,

If we think logicly though ... Bush told the UN he had proof. They asked to see it. He said no and went into war despite the UN saying no. After the war started and no WMD's could be found, the prioritie's got changed to liberating Iraq. After that was done, we went back to searching for the WMD's. When we came up empty handed again, we say we found and Iraqi scientist that say's they got shipped to Syria. BUT ... Like the proof of WMD's we had and wouldn't show the UN, no one is aloud to verify and interview this mysterious Iraqi scientist. So again, it's Bush's word only. Now, we have a new's article that say's White House official's are saying the WMD threat was a matter of emphasis more than it was a matter of proof, all to just gain support for going into Iraq. There never has been any proof of WMD's in Iraq. It was a matter of emphasis (ie. a lie).

Why go into Iraq to liberate them anyway's? Now we're gonna spend billion's of dollar's restructing there government and fixing up there problem's. What about america and it's problem's? What about all the low income fammilie's and homeless people? What about our education system's? The local high school near me is sh|t. What about our crime rate's? Why can't he be a good damned president an fix OUR problem's first?

mouko_ryuu,

It's not a matter of WHO would of freed the Iraqi people. Actually, I am happy there free now. My problem lie's with the fact that a president that came to power without any american citizen putting him into power lied to his people, told the whole world to screw and began the first pre-empt in US history. I still think Clinton was a great president. I could care less if he cheated on his wife. Just cuz he's president doesn't mean he's better than anyone else. He's still a #ing human being. He still has human emotion's and fault's. Bush on the other hand ... He's a god damned reptiod son of a bitch trying to ruin america (JK about the reptiod part ...)!



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 09:39 AM
link   
e-nonymous, yes Bush did say he had evidence and I do remember Powell giving that 90-minute presentation at the UN showing that evidence. There have been no WMD found to this date but the hunt isn't over. Just be patient.



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 09:53 AM
link   
What evidence was that again? Some report's and stuff right? I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about any actual hard proof of WMD's in Iraq. Bush said he had actual proof of WMD's in Iraq. Now it's nothing more than an emphasis to gain support for going into Iraq ... I can't stress the word DUH any more than I already have ...



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec

About time as far as who is lying would suggest you look in a mirror.

[Edited on 26-4-2003 by Toltec]


First, it's 'Bout Time', as in a fight. Practioner of intellectual violence that will leave your argument 'hole-yer' than the Ten Commandments!


Please prove my 'lies':

1) The administration shifted reasons for this invasion of Iraq, while never fleshing any out, and more importantly, never provided any concrete proof. There was never any clear and present danger from the nation state of Iraq against US soil.

2) The administration is refusing to let UN weapons inspectors back into the country. What do they have to fear? I would think a completely unfettered UN team would have a clear sailing, no?

3) The administration has been caught in lie and exagerations on everything they've tried to push; from fiscal projections to potential threats. Please do a search on my posts and read the sources; but please don't tell me the Christian Science Monitor or the Harvard Law Journal are 'Liberal'.

The reflection that needs to be checked is yours; if you look closely, you'll be able to see the face of your logical self turning away in disgust.



posted on Apr, 26 2003 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The Man tortured and killed by the thousands his own people. Despite this he was voted into office with a voter turnout of 100% all adults, who had the right to vote, turned in a ballot.

These are the same people who live in Iraq today who feel themselves in a position to complain and protest their situation. So the question is what kept him in power?

the population of Iraq is above 20,000,000 the army after GW1 had been substantially downsized so how in Gods name was he able to control this very same population to the extent he did.

Please don't tell me that it was the army or there expertise with conventional weaponry because in reality the Taliban was more organized.

Those people living in Iraq do not give a dam about Saddam Hussein despite the fact that while he was in power they responded to his every whim.

Why would they do that? Because he had a gun that fired 24,000,000 rounds? Because they thought he was a God and with the US taking him out of power they realized he was not? Because the Iraqi people were afraid of engaging there government due to its conventional forces?

Or is it because he had access to WMD whose location was known to only to the inner circle of his government?



The reflection that needs to be checked is yours; if you look closely, you'll be able to see the face of your logical self-turning away in disgust.


Given what is known this comment is absurd, as well is the issue of Saddam Hussein not having WMD. Simply stated, it is obvious a vast cover up/conspiracy exist and the UN is knee deep in it. How long were those "inspectors" in Iraq?

Why were there never any reports to the UN in respect to the torture chambers and mass killings? Why was this issue which is prima fascia evidence for the conclusion, Saddam Hussein is no better that a serial killer withheld and not presented to the UN assembly?

Bout time the administration of this country has not been caught in a lie, the UN has been caught in a lie. France and Germany who had the closest relationship with Iraq prior to the War have been caught in a lie. This article is a joke and you sir are exaggerating and over emphasizing its validity (i.e. lie)

[Edited on 27-4-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 08:39 AM
link   
My argument has always been anti-Saddam, it's never waivered in my disgust for his dictitorial stranglehold. I won't, however, wrap myself in the flag and claim righteousness while the root cause of anything done to date was simple crony capitalism.
Surely you realize that our country has a history of letting despots, dictators & tyrants exist & prosper as long as it's to our benefit or our proxies's benefits ( US Corporations)? You don't think the US is going to step in any time soon to enforce anti-child labor, anti-child slavery or any OSHA-like safety laws in the tyrannical countries that make our Nikes for 10 cents a pair, or our toasters for a quarter, do you? Regardless of the 100's of thousands of kids maimed or killed each year, or stolen from the parents to work?
So, while it's a valid statement that Saddam is scum, he's no worse than many of the countries leaders we still make money off of while turning a blind eye; when is the war campaign coming to their door step?
But then again, what's the likelyhood that any other country is going to be the world's #2 producer of a critical resource (oil)AND have it's regions most vast supply of another critical natural resource(water)?

Meanwhile....read on:

UN inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 93 miles. They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and American assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world.

On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa. This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified. The parts released were those which made it appear that the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons were "very low" for the "foreseeable future".

On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range. No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, suggested Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were in fact Scuds.


news.independent.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 28 2003 @ 11:54 AM
link   
That guy with the Dale Avatar is so right.

Liberals have stolen your brain through that thar dum tv set thing. yuck yuck.

Nothing is worse then those liberal faggets who would have Iraqis just butchered, so we can look "cooperative" in the World Spot Light.

Well the Rest of the World better sit back and shut up because they're going to find America a thorn in their side until they learn decency.

How about next time, instead of the UN trying to secure the strength of Dictator Nations to further their own power, they just say when a Nation Applies, "No you're a dictatorship, you DIE NOW!"

[Edited on 28-4-2003 by HKoT]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join