[Vision2020] WMDs, Iraq & Lies: Jan. 2003/Jan. 2005

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Coop et. al.

Maybe this time you could answer the arguments and facts I present here?  You 
clearly are avoiding responding to my fact based logic in these V2020 
discussions on the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush administration's 
approach to the War on Terror.

"Faulty intelligence" in the assertions made by Bush, Rice and others?

In a few hours on the Internet in the months before we invaded Iraq I 
discovered that the aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq that were claimed to be for a 
centrifuge for nuclear fuel processing was a false claim.  Also, the yellow cake 
from Niger that supposedly was obtained by Iraq for nuclear weapons production 
was a false story.  Both Hans Blix and former marine Scott Ridder, experts on 
WMDs in Iraq, both asserted that there was no evidence that at that time in 
the year before we invaded that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical or biological 
weapons, much less any means of delivering them to US soil. 

As I said, I learned all of this in just a few hours on the Internet before 
we invaded Iraq.  How can these false claims used to lead us to war be "false 
intelligence" when the information was available to anyone that revealed the 
claims of Iraq WMDs by the Bush administration to be highly doubtful?

The Iraq WMD threat spread by the Bush administration was a deliberate 
orchestrated propaganda effort using trumped up scare stories aimed at whipping the 
US public and the US congress into a war fever based on fear, hatred and anger 
to push the invasion.

At the bottom of this post I offer my V2020 post dated Jan. 20, 2003 before 
we invaded Iraq, where I elucidate the ten real reasons to invade, and most 
definitely I deliberately left out WMDs based on my research on this issue, 
though I do mention that I skipped this as a reason because of the lack of a sound 
basis in fact.

Developments since the invasion of Iraq, as we all know, have shown no WMDs 
there.

The statements make by Bush, Rice and others were definite and unambiguous 
that Iraq had WMDs and the capacity to deliver them to US soil.  The image of a 
"mushroom cloud" over the US, and I am quoting Bush, was used to scare the US 
public into endorsing the invasion of Iraq.

This was not a case of faulty intelligence.  These were flat out lies told to 
the US public by our president, Condi Rice and others.  For the leader of our 
nation to lie to the citizens of the US to lead them into war must rank as 
one of the most egregious offenses a president can commit.

It's possible that our commander in chief just swallowed whatever he was told 
to say to the US public about WMDs in Iraq and never checked on the facts 
himself directly.  So though he would then be an incompetent president, he might 
have really believed what he was saying.  This also renders him a failure as a 
leader.

Ted Moffett

Ted Moffett ted_moffett at hotmail.com 
Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:18:20 +0000 
Previous message: [Vision2020] In the Iraq aftermath 
Next message: [Vision2020] In the Iraq aftermath 
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 

All:

Either Krehbiel is refreshingly honest in his approach to capitalism, 
rejecting the propaganda of sugar coating militaristic imperialism with some 
grand holy moral cause, or we have a sarcastic writer playing games.

It is already decided we will topple Saddam, I agree.  And the history of 
British involvement in the oil resources of Iraq and Kuwait, coupled with 
the dominant role Britain plays as the number one US ally, almost guarantees 
Britain's assistance.  The extreme "right wingers" who dreamed of a new 
"Pearl Harbor" to justify an expansion of American military, political and 
economic power found their wishes fulfilled on 9/11.  Toppling Iraq is just 
one step in this process.

The "Top 10" reasons we will topple Saddam are, in no particular order, and 
skipping the complex analysis to explain some of the reasons:

1. Protect Israel.
2. Block any future attempts to unify the middle east especially using oil 
resources as economic weapons against the west.
3. Gain immediate and future western control over Iraq oil.
4. Bolster the family pride of the Bush clan.
5. Feed the power and greed of the current cabal of hard line militarists in 
the Bush administration and Pentagon.
6. Give notice to other states who may challenge US economic and political 
hegemony that we will use military power unilaterally against them.

The following 7, 8 and 9 numbered reasons are more related to keeping Bush 
in office for a second term, and other agendas of control over the US 
public.

7. Keep the American public focused on foreign "threats" rather than 
domestic economic and social problems.
8. Continue to generate a climate of fear to create a psychology of 
"sacrifice" so that Americans will willingly endure the just mentioned 
domestic problems.
9. Continuing the assault on civil liberties with a "1984" style endless 
"War On Terror" to consolidate legal and law enforcement control over future 
potential "unrest" in the USA.

10. And one of the main reasons to go after Iraq:  We can get away with it!  
Iraq is an easy military target.  Iraq is weak and cannot militarily damage 
anyone, unlike N. Korea who could unleash horrors on S. Korea. Iraq has no 
allies who will step in to defend them.

Anyone with other reasons I overlooked?

But what, you might say, about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq 
sponsored terrorism?  I think any realistic analysis of these threats 
exposes them as minor, blown way out of proportion to be used as moral 
justifications for what is nothing more than good old fashioned imperialism. 
Numerous other states are more of a threat with weapons of mass 
destruction and sponsoring terrorism.

Anyone with good advice on investment options?

Ted




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050126/0a81703f/attachment.htm