Skip to comments.Journalist claims proof of WMD lies (Report Aired in UK)
Posted on 09/22/2003 9:15:51 PM PDT by Mark Felton
AUSTRALIAN investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them.
A television report by Pilger aired on British screens overnight said US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.
But after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on September 11 that year, Pilger claimed Rice said the US "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities" to attack Iraq and claim control of its oil.
Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Powell boasted this was because America's policy of containment and its sanctions had effectively disarmed Saddam.
Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.
Pilger interviewed several leading US government figures in Washington but said he did not ask Powell or Rice to respond to his claims.
"I think it's very serious for Howard. Howard has followed the Americans and to a lesser degree Blair almost word for word," Pilger told AAP before his program was screened on ITV tonight.
"All Howard does is say `well it's not true' and never explains himself.
"I just don't believe you can be seen to be party to such a big lie, such a big deception and endure that politically.
"It simply can't be shrugged off and that's Howard's response.
"Blair has shrugged it off but Blair is deeply damaged. It's far from over here, there's a lot that is going to happen and much of it could wash onto Howard.
"And it's unravelling in America and Bush could lose the election next year.
"I've not seen political leaders survive when they've been complicit in such an open deception for so long."
Howard last week dismissed an accusation from Opposition Leader Simon Crean that he hid a warning from British intelligence that war against Iraq would heighten the terrorist threat to Australia.
In his report, Pilger interviews Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush's father and ex-president, George Bush senior.
McGovern told Pilger that going to war because of weapons of mass destruction "was 95 per cent charade."
Pilger also claims that six hours after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wanted to "hit" Iraq and allegedly said "Go Massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
He was allegedly talked down by Powell who said the American people would not accept an attack on Iraq without any evidence, so they opted to invade Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden had bases.
Pilger claimed war was set in train on September 17, 2001 when Bush signed a paper directing the Pentagon to explore the military options for an attack on Iraq.
Oh and you suck, because you are a liberal.
(* My note : The Democrats' talking points would later flip flop completely- insisting the WMD was a myth started by Bush - in order to appeal to far left antiwar voters in their primary election season 2003-4 )
1998 : (TOM DASCHLE, DICK GEPHARDT "ANY DELAY WOULD GIVE SADDAM HUSSEIN TIME TO RECONSTITUTE HIS ARSENAL OF WMD") The two Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Dick Gephardt, issued a joint statement hailing Clinton's "correct decision to undertake military action against Iraq at this time." Indeed, they added, "Any delay would have given Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002
JANUARY 1998 : (UNSCOM TEAM FINDS IRAQI CHILDREN'S PRISON - ACCORDING TO LATER INTERVIEW WITH SCOTT RITTER) Q : "You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there? " A: "The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children toddlers up to pre-adolescents whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." [* My note : ...At the expense of kids...]
FEBRUARY 4, 1998 : (CLINTON ON IRAQI WMD) "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
FEBRUARY 13, 1998 : (CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ON IRAQI WMD) The US insists it will not walk away from stopping Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction, and Russian objections would not prevent use of force. Russia says diplomatic effort should not end before Kofi Annan visits Baghdad. Russia warns US against military action - TIMELINE OF THE IRAQI CRISIS 1997-1998
FEBRUARY 17, 1998 : (CLINTON ON IRAQI WMD PROGRAM) "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
FEBRUARY 18, 1998 : (IRAQ ISSUE : SEC OF STATE ALBRIGHT ON BLACKMAIL WITH WMD) "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
FEBRUARY 18, 1998 : (NSA ADVISOR SANDY BERGER ON IRAQI WMD) "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
FEBRUARY 26, 1998 : (CLINTON ADMINISTRATION ACCUSED OF HANDING OVER US FOREIGN POLICY TO THE UN) American Republicans claim that President Clinton has handed Washington's policy on Iraq over to the United Nations. US:Can Clinton sell Iraqi deal? - TIMELINE OF THE IRAQI CRISIS 1997-1998
MARCH 1998 : (IRAQ & AL QAEDA OPERATIVE MEET, SET STAGE FOR IRAQI DIPLOMAT HIJAZI TO TRAVEL TO AFGHANISTAN) The al Qaeda operative visits Baghdad for two weeks. The visit sets the stage for Farouk Hijazi to travel to bin Laden's Afghanistan hideouts in December 1998. - "The Clinton Intel Record Deeper failures revealed. ," by Mansoor Ijaz, National Review Online, 4-29-2003
APRIL 25 - MAY 1, 1998 : (AL QAEDA'S ABU-ISLAM & QASSIM MEET WITH QUSAY HUSSEIN IN IRAQ; ALSO IRAQI AGENTS MET WITH AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN) Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of bin Ladens senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad for discussions with Saddam Husseins son -- Qusay Hussein -- the czar of Iraqi intelligence. Qusay Husseins participation in those meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. Upon information and belief, as a direct result of these meetings, Iraq again made commitments to provide training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, financial support and weapons and explosives to al Qaeda. Iraqi intelligence officials met with bin Laden in Afghanistan several more times. A second group of bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia were then trained by Iraqi intelligence in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia and other countries, which they later accomplished in an effort to carry out future terrorist acts of violence. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda
1998 summer : (IRAQ TRAINS AL QAEDA PERSONNEL) After the meetings in Iraq with Qusay Hussein, Saddam hussein's son, Iraqi intelligence officials met with bin Laden in Afghanistan several more times. A second group of bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia were then trained by Iraqi intelligence in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia and other countries, which they later accomplished in an effort to carry out future terrorist acts of violence.A third group of bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives received a month of sophisticated guerrilla operations training from Iraqi intelligence officials later in the Summer of 1998. - Findlaw, Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda
MAY 1998 : (IRAQ, CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, KHALED ELGINDY, AAI, IRAQ TRIP) Khaled Elgindy joins a delegation of Arab-American activists on a humanitarian mission to Iraq and to observe the effects of sanctions first hand. Khaled previously served as Press Secretary to Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), who at the time became the first member of Congress to oppose military action against Iraq and has since called for the lifting of sanctions against the Iraqi people. Khaled Elgindy is in 2002, the National Coordinator for Political Action at the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC. Khaled represents AAI on a number of national coalitions, including the National Iraq Network, and is responsible for mobilizing Arab-American action on various legislative issues.e has a master's degree from Georgetown University's school of foreign service and a bachelor's degree in Poli-Sci from Indiana U. May be relative of Amr I. ``Tony'' Elgindy, arrested on charges related to stock dealing around 9/11/2002
(Hey, here's an interesting coincidence... bin Laden and Saddam Hussein both warning the US at almost the same time : )
MAY 1998 : (AFGHANISTAN, BIN LADEN THREATENS THE US) Bin Laden stated at a press conference in Afghanistan that we would see the results of his threats "in a few weeks." (Forewarning of the US embassy attacks in Africa in August?)
MAY 1, 1998 : (IRAQ THREATENS "GRAVE CONSEQUENCES" IF SANCTIONS ARE NOT LIFTED) In an open letter to the Security Council, Iraq warns of grave consequences if UN sanctions against it are not lifted. - TIMELINE OF THE IRAQI CRISIS 1997-1998 (Was this forewarning of the US embassy attacks in Africa in August?)
(* Hey, guess who has been right all along? : Rummy! And on North Korea to boot... )
JULY 1998 : (RUMSFELD CONGRESSIONAL PANEL REPORT ISSUED : WARNS OF NORTH KOREAN MISSILE DEVELOPMENT) The Congressional panel headed by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, appeared more candid. The panel's report issued in July 1998 states: "The commission judges that the No Dong was operationally deployed long before the US government recognized that fact. There is ample evidence that North Korea has created a sizable missile production infrastructure, and therefore it is highly likely that considerable numbers of No Dongs have been produced." Because of the Intelligence Community's failure to assess both the scope and pace of the No Dong development, the Rumsfeld commission warned that "the United States may have very little warning prior to deployment of the Taepo Dong 2"--the missile that can target the United States. - Air Force Magazine 1/2000 Bill Gertz
OCTOBER 9, 1998 : (LEVIN, DASCHLE & KERRY SIGN LETTER TO CLINTON ON AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE ACTION ON IRAQ OVER ITS WMD) "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
DECEMBER 1998 : (BILL CLINTON ACTS "TOUGH" ON IRAQ) Bill Clinton was firm, resolute and uncompromising in explaining to the nation why military action against Saddam Hussein had proved necessary: "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere," he said. "This is a question of action. Iraq has abused its final chance." Indeed, he warned, "Overwhelming force remains an option." Delaying such action "for even a matter of days would [give] Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons." Even with nations such as Russia, China and France disagreeing with the use of armed force, he said, "we remain ready to act." Bill Clinton issued those threats and later acted on them (albeit briefly and tentatively). - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002
DECEMBER 18, 1998 : (DEM CONGRESSWOMAN PELOSI ON THREAT OF IRAQI WMD IN BLACKMAIL, IRAQI MOCKERY OF INSPECTION PROCESS)"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
DECEMBER 1998 : (KERRY ON IRAQ'S WMD) "Saddam Hussein's objective is to maintain a program of weapons of mass destruction," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) back then. (December 1998) "It is important to hold him accountable by force. No one will question that it is Mr. Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else." In 1998, Kerry insisted "I would go beyond mere containment." But in 2002, when George W. Bush became commander-in-chief, Kerry (who'd dearly love to move into the White House himself) wants to know why America isn't pursuing a policy of containment. - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002 - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002.
1998 : (US : HOUSE RESOLUTION ENDORSING REGIME CHANGE IN IRAQ APPROVED) Were Republicans opposing the Democratic president in 1998? No: A House resolution supporting the attack and endorsing regime change in Iraq passed by 417-5. There was some GOP skepticism - but only over the air strikes' politically suspicious timing: Clinton launched the attack one day before the vote on his impeachment. And he had, until then, consistently backed down when faced with the need for military force against Saddam. Indeed, the White House flip-flopped on its Iraq policy from Day One of Clinton's administration. Clinton repeatedly threatened to go to war over weapons inspections. Later, he secretly undermined those same inspectors' ability to do their job . - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002
1998 : (USA : NY SENATOR LEVINE URGES CLINTON TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ OVER WMD) Democratic Senator Carl Levine initiated a letter signed by 26 colleagues urging Clinton "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction." - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002
[* At least Tenet seemed to know what was going on, even if the rest of the administration was virtually paralyzed by Iraqi stubborness]
1998 : (TOM DASCHLE, DICK GEPHARDT SUPPORT IMMEDIATE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ - BUT HAVE DUAL "SENIOR MOMENTS" LATER ON IN 2003 AND FORGET WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUPPORTED) The two Democratic congressional leaders, Sen. Tom Daschle and Rep. Dick Gephardt, issued a joint statement hailing Clinton's "correct decision to undertake military action against Iraq at this time." Indeed, they added, "Any delay would have given Saddam Hussein time to recontitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction." - "DEM DOUBLE-TAKE (or...Hypocrites On Parade), " by ERIC FETTMANN, New York Post October 10, 2002
NOVEMBER 10, 1999 : (SEC OF STATE ALBRIGHT ON IRAQI WMD) "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
DECEMBER 5, 2001 : (DEMOCRAT SENATOR GRAHAM SIGNS LETTER ON IRAQI EMD ) "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002 : (DEM SENATOR LEVINE ON IRAQI WMD & DELIVERY SYSTEMS) "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 : (FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AL GORE ON IRAQI WMD) "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 : (FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AL GORE ON IRAQI WMD) "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
SEPTEMBER 27, 2002 : (TED KENNEDY ON IRAQI WMD) "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
OCTOBER 3, 2002 : (DEM SENATOR BYRD ON IRAQI WMD) "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
OCTOBER 9, 2002 : (DEM SENATOR KERRY ON REGIME CHANGE AND WMD) "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
OCTOBER 10, 2002 : (DEM SENATOR ROCKEFELLER ON IRAQI WMD ... NUKES) "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
OCTOBER 10, 2002 : (DEM REP WAXMAN ON IRAQI WMD) "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
OCTOBER 10, 2002 : (HILLARY ON IRAQI WMD) "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
DECEMBER 8, 2002 : (DEM SENATOR GRAHAM ON IRAQI WMD) "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
JANUARY 23, 2003 : (DEM SENATOR KERRY ON IRAQI WMD) "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
(* My note : The Democrats' talking points on WMD would later flip flop completely- insisting the WMD was a myth started by Bush - in order to appeal to far left antiwar voters in their primary election season 2003-4 )
Every time we put these up we should put up the Republican quotes from the time period. Otherwise these Democrat quotes will make them look tough when in fact, they're wimps when it comes to foreign policy, I mean, UN policy in their case. They will talk like Jane Fonda up to the primaries to get the far left vote. After that, the winning Democrat candidate will resurrect these tought quote to look tough for the national election and hope their pacifistic "please stomp on us" quotes are forgotten.
Here's why nobody freaking cares what you or Pilger think.
Powell was arguing for "smart sanctions" in early 2001. He was trying to take control of Iraq policy and to salvage our position in those days.
Containment was actually a spectacular failure. So porous was it that many in the U.N. joked that Saddam ran an "oil for palaces" program. The Eurotrash were trying to get the sanctions lifted. It was in Powell's interest to state that sanctions were working in order to maintain a rationale for keeping them. In fact, prior to 9-11, the containment policy was unraveling. Powell knew this, and so did everyone else who took a passing glance at the papers in those days.
After 9-11, Powell lost primary control of Iraq policy to Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld. Even the remotest possibility of Iraq's wealth being teamed up with Al Qaeda's fanaticism meant that Saddam was a dead man. The time for diplomacy had passed into history.
No responsible government could have done otherwise.
Oh, btw, Pilger and Fisk are best ignored. They're were against our campaign in Afghanistan, for Christ's sake!
Be Seeing You,
We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa Ittihadiya Palace
Cairo, Egypt February 24, 2001
Let's not forget, we hadn't been in Iraq for 4 years so Powell really didn't know for sure. Powell made the mistake of believing the clinton State Dept. flunkies?
Let's remember Powell had been in the job for a short time (1 month). And why would he change his tune in March 2001? See post #37.
That dog won't hunt.
The real question is why was there sanctions to begin with? and why should we tollerate that kind of defiance after 9/11?
Saddam had his chances to comply, and he chose not too. BAD CHOICE!
Pilger and Mulvey are just two stinking liberals who will never get it
Containment was actually a spectacular failure.
Then you say,
It was in Powell's interest to state that sanctions were working in order to maintain a rationale for keeping them.
Then, you again reiterate the failure of sanctions:
In fact, prior to 9-11, the containment policy was unraveling.
So, are we to conclude that Powell was just telling another gutter politician's lie? I mean, this was arguing for a fairly substantial policy, not whether to pave some country road. If he will do that, is there anything we can believe of him?
Bad choice on our part and the American and Iraqi people suffered for it. I understand why GHWB thought he had to do it and his son has learned from his mistakes. It's true, our United States is not perfect but at least we try hard. Which is more than I can say for certain other countries.
and why should we tollerate that kind of defiance after 9/11?
We shouldn't have tolerated after it after 1997.
Don't laugh too loud when you read this and wake up everyone in the house. :-)
President Clinton responded to the Iraqi presidents decision by pledging to deal in a very determined way with Saddams expulsion of American weapons inspectors Thursday. But for the time being, the United States pursued a diplomatic solution rather than a military strike.
Here's some good stuff:
Rubner said that considerable evidence has been found over the last six years that Saddam violated every U.N. resolution passed in the wake of the Persian Gulf War.
But Harland Renshaw, a pre-vet sophomore, said he would support Clinton if he decided to use military force against Iraq because its important that the country cant build weapons of mass destruction.
Something should be done, he said. I wouldnt want them to have nuclear weapons around. If they dont want us there to do inspections, then theyve obviously got something to hide.
Richard Butler, the head of the U.N. team, admitted Thursday that pulling all inspectors out would severely hamper the U.N.s ability to ensure that Iraq is not building weapons of mass destruction.
All kinds of great info in that piece, including the Kenneth Bacon quote, Im not talking military action. Youre talking about military action.
I did, and it was very educational. Thanks for the tip. With a statement like this...
"Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic peoples have been its victims - principally the victims of US fundamentalism, whose power, in all its forms, military, strategic and economic, is the greatest source of terrorism on earth."
...Pilger makes it eminently clear where he's coming from, and establishes his level of credibility. On September 13, 2001, I was somewhat preoccupied, like most Americans. Meanwhile, Pilger had the time to write and publish that article, 2 days after the towers fell.
The fact that I found this particular copy on a German Marxist website also speaks volumes about the man and his fellow travelers.
Now please pardon me while I go take a long shower after reading this hack's worthless garbage. But before I go wash the scum off me, let me leave you with the last two sentences from that article:
"It is only a few years ago that the Islamic fundamentalist groups, willing to blow themselves up in Israel and New York, were formed, and only after Israel and the US had rejected outright the hope of a Palestinian state, and justice for a people scarred by imperialism.
"Their distant voices of rage are now heard; the daily horrors in faraway brutalised places have at last come home."
Exactly. I can't believe these people even have the guts to pretend Bush lied about WMD to start a war.
The people making this accusations are either mentally ill or they have lost their collective memories.
Why not take yourself over to DU where tin foil is all the rage.
At this point their seats weren't even warm yet and they were totally dependent on Clintonistas for their Intel. And, fact isat that time, they (and we, both Dems and Pubbies) wanted to stay out of Iraq etc. That was pre-9/11, the day our way of seeing the world changed.
Perhaps you'd better read the rest of the thread before you draw your conclusions.
Hmmm ... a Google Search has Powell saying THIS when he was in Cairo on February 24, 2001:
SECRETARY POWELL: The message I plan to give all the leaders I speak to and to the Arab public is that the cause of this problem that we have is in Baghdad. It is Saddam Hussein who refuses to abandon his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations has an obligation and, as part of the United Nations, the United States has an obligation to do everything we can to cause him to come into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War. He threatens not the United States. He threatens this region. He threatens Arab people. He threatens the children of Egypt, the children of Saudi Arabia, the children of Kuwait with these weapons. He has used them before, so I think we all have a solemn obligation to keep him in check.
Seems rather strange that Powell would contradict himself in such a manner. Unless, of course, Pilger is lying through his teeth.
It'll further rile up the folks who already hate Bush, but it won't go any further as it is based on a rather third-rate attempt to lift comments out of context.
Are we beating this dead horse again? There's nothing left but hide and shoes.
Where did he get these "reliable" numbers? Oh he pulled them out of his glory hole. Even if you go to to American hating web sites like:http://www.mykeru.com/bodycount.html#KID you will see that the total is more like 16-20 thousand. 6,000 civ 10,000 Iraqi Mil.
I'm sorry, this too is wrong if you go to the web site there is an estimate; it is 3x the body count.
That's as far as I got. Pilger is a renowed anti-American, and biased in the extreme. Nothing he says or writes can be trusted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.