Chalabigate
"Weapons of Mass Deception"
2005-01-21
No WMDs, No Problem
Impeachment isn't good enough for this gang.
by Alan Bisbort - January 20, 2005
They called off the search for those wily weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last week. "They" are the people the Bush Administration sent out in the field to play a high stakes and expensive ($1 billion) game of charades with the American people.
The WMD search was never really serious; it was like O.J. Simpson's search for the person who murdered his wife -- a diversionary tactic. More to the point, the WMD search was part of George W's comedy routine. You know, the one where he pretends to look under his desk, out the window, behind the file cabinet ... then tells an audience of gutless yellow journalists "they gotta be around here somewhere!" (yes, this actually happened at the National Press Club), and we all die laughing.
"We," meaning anyone with a functioning brain who opposed this terrible war, knew there were no WMDs. We believed Hans Blix and Scott Ritter long before Bush's propagandists, led by the New York Times ' Judith Miller, started laying down their WMD diversions. Miller's source for the WMD claim was Ahmad Chalabi, the Bernie Kerik of the Middle East. We preferred to trust Ritter, a decorated U.S. Marine and super-patriot who worked for the U.N. inspection team from 1991 to 1998. He, like Blix, repeatedly claimed that 90 to 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed and practically got on his knees and begged the U.S. government not to invade Iraq. Ritter was way too kind to Bush in his estimates; zero WMDs were found in Iraq, not even the ones the Bushes probably planted there.
We knew that Iraq presented no imminent threat to the U.S. We knew Iraq had no connection to 9/11; 15 of the 18 attackers that day were Saudi; none were Iraqi. And yet, we have been sending our sons and daughters to die for Bush's Iraqi diversion. We number in the tens of millions, but we don't matter. "They," the war criminals who opened this Pain-dora's Box in the Middle East, outvoted us, just as the Supreme Court outvoted us in 2000, 5 to 45 million.
Now that all the justifications for the war in Iraq -- WMDs, threat, connection to 9/11 -- have proven lies, it isn't up to "we" to step forward. "They" already know how "we" feel. It is up to "you" to do that -- "you," who backed this guy, "you," who shouted us down, called us unpatriotic, keyed our cars, made anonymous threatening phone calls and whispered vile lies about us to our communities. You broke it, you bought it. Don't come looking to us for any hugs just because you finally figured out that the "neos" really were the "cons" we told they were two years ago.
Are "you" going to be honest about this, take some moral inventory, and admit you have been duped by some really dangerous people? Or are you going to say, like the President, "It doesn't matter"?
If it's the former, that's the first step toward healing the nation's wounds and reclaiming what's left of our democracy.
If it's the latter, I hope you burn slowly and forever in hell.
When Barbara Walters asked Bush last week if the war in Iraq was worth it, even though no WMDs were found, he responded, "Oh, absolutely" the way someone might respond were they asked at a cocktail party, "Would you care for another pretzel?"
Think about it: We've invaded a country in the heart of the 1.1-billion-strong Muslim world under false pretenses, laid waste to their cities, tortured their people, allowed their cultural treasures to be looted, killed more than 100,000 civilians (that's the confirmed number; it's likely twice or thrice that), and stolen their oil, the one cash crop they have, taunting them every step of the way. And the man responsible says "Oh, absolutely," it was worth it.
No matter what happens with the Iraqi elections on Jan. 30 -- and I anticipate chaos and bloodshed -- the justifications and excuses for this war were lies. The rest of the world knows this. Why don't we?
Another thing you may not know, because it was reported by the foreign press: 5,500 U.S. soldiers have already deserted, either going permanently AWOL or seeking asylum in Canada, Mexico or anywhere that will have them. Maybe these soldiers figured it out before the rest of you. Maybe they've seen one too many stories like the following, from last week: A U.S. warplane dropped a 500-pound bomb on the wrong house in Mosul. The man who owned the house said the bomb killed 14 people; an AP photographer on the scene confirmed the number and said seven of the victims were children. The U.S. military admitted to dropping the bomb, and that it hit the wrong house, but they insist that only five people were killed.
Oh, absolutely. It was worth it.
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:96811
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
by Alan Bisbort - January 20, 2005
They called off the search for those wily weapons of mass destruction in Iraq last week. "They" are the people the Bush Administration sent out in the field to play a high stakes and expensive ($1 billion) game of charades with the American people.
The WMD search was never really serious; it was like O.J. Simpson's search for the person who murdered his wife -- a diversionary tactic. More to the point, the WMD search was part of George W's comedy routine. You know, the one where he pretends to look under his desk, out the window, behind the file cabinet ... then tells an audience of gutless yellow journalists "they gotta be around here somewhere!" (yes, this actually happened at the National Press Club), and we all die laughing.
"We," meaning anyone with a functioning brain who opposed this terrible war, knew there were no WMDs. We believed Hans Blix and Scott Ritter long before Bush's propagandists, led by the New York Times ' Judith Miller, started laying down their WMD diversions. Miller's source for the WMD claim was Ahmad Chalabi, the Bernie Kerik of the Middle East. We preferred to trust Ritter, a decorated U.S. Marine and super-patriot who worked for the U.N. inspection team from 1991 to 1998. He, like Blix, repeatedly claimed that 90 to 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed and practically got on his knees and begged the U.S. government not to invade Iraq. Ritter was way too kind to Bush in his estimates; zero WMDs were found in Iraq, not even the ones the Bushes probably planted there.
We knew that Iraq presented no imminent threat to the U.S. We knew Iraq had no connection to 9/11; 15 of the 18 attackers that day were Saudi; none were Iraqi. And yet, we have been sending our sons and daughters to die for Bush's Iraqi diversion. We number in the tens of millions, but we don't matter. "They," the war criminals who opened this Pain-dora's Box in the Middle East, outvoted us, just as the Supreme Court outvoted us in 2000, 5 to 45 million.
Now that all the justifications for the war in Iraq -- WMDs, threat, connection to 9/11 -- have proven lies, it isn't up to "we" to step forward. "They" already know how "we" feel. It is up to "you" to do that -- "you," who backed this guy, "you," who shouted us down, called us unpatriotic, keyed our cars, made anonymous threatening phone calls and whispered vile lies about us to our communities. You broke it, you bought it. Don't come looking to us for any hugs just because you finally figured out that the "neos" really were the "cons" we told they were two years ago.
Are "you" going to be honest about this, take some moral inventory, and admit you have been duped by some really dangerous people? Or are you going to say, like the President, "It doesn't matter"?
If it's the former, that's the first step toward healing the nation's wounds and reclaiming what's left of our democracy.
If it's the latter, I hope you burn slowly and forever in hell.
When Barbara Walters asked Bush last week if the war in Iraq was worth it, even though no WMDs were found, he responded, "Oh, absolutely" the way someone might respond were they asked at a cocktail party, "Would you care for another pretzel?"
Think about it: We've invaded a country in the heart of the 1.1-billion-strong Muslim world under false pretenses, laid waste to their cities, tortured their people, allowed their cultural treasures to be looted, killed more than 100,000 civilians (that's the confirmed number; it's likely twice or thrice that), and stolen their oil, the one cash crop they have, taunting them every step of the way. And the man responsible says "Oh, absolutely," it was worth it.
No matter what happens with the Iraqi elections on Jan. 30 -- and I anticipate chaos and bloodshed -- the justifications and excuses for this war were lies. The rest of the world knows this. Why don't we?
Another thing you may not know, because it was reported by the foreign press: 5,500 U.S. soldiers have already deserted, either going permanently AWOL or seeking asylum in Canada, Mexico or anywhere that will have them. Maybe these soldiers figured it out before the rest of you. Maybe they've seen one too many stories like the following, from last week: A U.S. warplane dropped a 500-pound bomb on the wrong house in Mosul. The man who owned the house said the bomb killed 14 people; an AP photographer on the scene confirmed the number and said seven of the victims were children. The U.S. military admitted to dropping the bomb, and that it hit the wrong house, but they insist that only five people were killed.
Oh, absolutely. It was worth it.
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:96811
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Milton Frihetsson, 04:04
6 Comments:
... and we've removed a brutal dictator who was more than happy to kill his own people and to effectively buy the UN, and we're attempting to spread democracy.
Also -
* "We've ... killed killed more than 100,000 civilians (that's the confirmed number; it's likely twice or thrice that), and stolen their oil" - several lies all in one run on sentence, congratulations!
(We are not the one killing the massive #'s of civilians, and we are not stealing their oil).
* "We number in the tens of millions" ... and are, luckily, outnumbered by 3.5M
"If it's the latter, I hope you burn slowly and forever in hell." ... While I would never hope anyone suffers like that, I do believe that it is reserved for those who are disingenuous, for those who perpetrate (or knowingly allow/enable/assist others in committing) murder/torture/rape, and for those who follow the people in the first two parts.
Have a great day,
/TJ
Also -
* "We've ... killed killed more than 100,000 civilians (that's the confirmed number; it's likely twice or thrice that), and stolen their oil" - several lies all in one run on sentence, congratulations!
(We are not the one killing the massive #'s of civilians, and we are not stealing their oil).
* "We number in the tens of millions" ... and are, luckily, outnumbered by 3.5M
"If it's the latter, I hope you burn slowly and forever in hell." ... While I would never hope anyone suffers like that, I do believe that it is reserved for those who are disingenuous, for those who perpetrate (or knowingly allow/enable/assist others in committing) murder/torture/rape, and for those who follow the people in the first two parts.
Have a great day,
/TJ
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Saddam was no less of a brutal dictator when rumsfeld shook his hand in 1983 than when he got ousted and there are a number of equally brutal dictators that have recieved and is recieving support and arms from the u.s, so although no one will miss him, it´s hypocritical to congratulate oneself on removing this former u.s ally - its on the same level as congratulating onself for rebuilding a city you yourself destroyed in the first place.
The oil is supposed to pay for the war and the reconstruction as well as cutting a deal with israel which chalabi was supposed to set up. so you are wrong.
And the 100 000 civilian iraqi casualty figure is based on the same scientific method used in Kosovo - are you disputing that as well?
Bush just said that his reelection was a demonstration of public support for the neocon empire building strategy, so that is a confirmation from the president that anyone who support it is responsible for the consequenses too on a personal level.
/Have a nice day yourself and visit the forum if you want to debate it further.
The oil is supposed to pay for the war and the reconstruction as well as cutting a deal with israel which chalabi was supposed to set up. so you are wrong.
And the 100 000 civilian iraqi casualty figure is based on the same scientific method used in Kosovo - are you disputing that as well?
Bush just said that his reelection was a demonstration of public support for the neocon empire building strategy, so that is a confirmation from the president that anyone who support it is responsible for the consequenses too on a personal level.
/Have a nice day yourself and visit the forum if you want to debate it further.
On this site you´ll find around 600 articles about why bush decided to invade iraq. WMD was not the only issue it was the main issue when it came to fooling people into supporting it.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Saddam was no less of a brutal dictator when rumsfeld shook his hand in 1983 than when he got ousted and there are a number of equally brutal dictators that have recieved and is recieving support and arms from the u.s,"
Amen brother
Amen brother
