[Vision2020] 935 False Statements Made Before War

[Donovan Arnold]

I have always believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs because Reagan and Bush gave them to him in the 1980s.
   
  Why are we acting surprised at Bush's deception of those foolish enough to believe him? It is easy to tell is a politician is lying, their lips move. 
   
  I want to know which of the current candidates that are running tell the least number of lies. 
   
  Bush is a lame duck. Let's focus on prevention of corruption in the future, not on the corruption of the current administration. 
   
  Best,
   
  Donovan

Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
    
All-
   
  Many people were deceived by the coordinated effort to hype Iraq's WMD capability in the late 1990s up to the 2003 invasion.  And it seemed many forgot that the US supported Iraq's weapons programs with aid, during the Reagan administration (why Reagan is such a huge hero I can't fathom, given his involvement with the US Constitution violating Iran/Contra scandal, aid to Saddam, support for Central American death squad dictators, and ill advised support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, the mujahideen 'freedom fighters,' and other black marks).  
   
  Former Bush administration Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983 when he served in the Reagan administration:
   
  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
   
  http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
   
  But being ill informed or deceived about Iraq's WMD program and ties to Al Qaeda is one thing.  Cheney, Bush and others in the Bush administration, using the power of the executive branch, deliberately deceived the US public in hyping this danger, to justify an invasion and occupation of another nation by the US military, killing, given a conservative estimate, over 100,000 civilians, with over a million Iraqis now refuges or internally displaced (one reason the level of violence is down, with neighborhoods now ethnically cleansed into exclusive Sunni or Shite areas, as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled for their lives).  This is an impeachable offence, linked to the commission of war crimes, especially with the justifications and commission of torture, Abu Ghraib prison horrors, etc. 
   
  The media, the vaunted Fourth Estate, along with the US Congress, failed utterly to expose the fabrications (yellow cake uranium from Niger), distortions (Iraq with ties to Al Queda and links to 9/11), and well known falsehoods (false claim Iraq had obtained centrifuge tubes for nuclear material processing), in the run up to the invasion.  Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted he presented erroneous information to the UN in his presentation before the US invasion regarding Iraq WMD capability: 
   
  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3D9143FF934A25756C0A9629C8B63
   
  Pakistan's nuclear weapons are more of a threat to world security, it can be argued, than Saddam's WMDs ever were, given Pakistan has Islamic militants operating inside its borders, with sympathizers in the Pakistan military, who once supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.  Amazing that a government with known ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with Bin Laden suspected to be in hiding near or within its borders, is a US alley receiving millions in US military aid, while Saddam had no substantial ties to the Bin Laden/9/11 Islamic militants. 
   
  There are serious questions regarding why the US shifted the focus away from catching Bin Laden in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area after the post 9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, while pushing for the invasion of Iraq with a demonization of Saddam as a threat to US national security.   And that the US public did not question this refocus of our military, when the job of catching Bin Laden was left undone, suggests a disturbing susceptibility to simple minded sound bite scare tactic propaganda coupled with a very short attention span. 
   
  Ted Moffett
   
  On 1/24/08, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:   Glenn--

(1) Whose false statements did Kerry rely on in coming to the
conclusion that Hussein presented a "particularly grievous threat?" 

(2) What was the result of Clinton's Iraq policy, including threats of
force? Was it (a) an active WMD program, or (b) an inactive WMD
program?

-- ACS


=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080125/26d6f75a/attachment.html