Pilger claims White House knew Saddam was no threat

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 9/23/2003 | Pilger

[Azzurri]

Australian investigative journalist John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie which 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 last night 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.

[Azzurri]

I couldn't find this article here on FR, but this is apparently making the rounds amongst the frothing-at-the-mouth liberal contingent. Powell's quotes in February 2001 and Condi Rice's a couple months later, that Saddam posed no threat. Powell's quote do in fact show up on the State Department website, so they are true. My take is "what's the big deal?" but the liberals are attempting to play up this story to the major media - fyi.

[MEG33]

It has been posted .I recommend reading Pilger 9/13/01 article intimating that the chickens came home to roost on 9/11, "Inevitable Ring to the Unimaginable". He is a left wing,Noam Chomsky loving,America hating, anti war writer.

[halfdome]

You don't think it's a big deal that in 2/01 Powell said that Hussein had not developed any significant capability with respect to WMD and was unable to project conventional power against his neighbors, and then in the lead up to the Iraq war Powell went before the UN and said that Iraq had 500 tons of chemical or biological weapons?

[MEG33]

I pinged you to the old thread.You'll find Ammo to use for other sites.

[Azzurri]

You don't think it's a big deal that in 2/01 Powell said that Hussein had not developed any significant capability with respect to WMD...

No. Not when you factor in that the Bush administration took office in late 1/2001, just 3-4 weeks before Powell's statements. Surely that was not enough time to draw conclusions on Iraq's capabilities.

[Burlem]

Read this! Article written in January...seems many are "playing their parts perfectly"

ELECTION 2004
Democrats to raise
doubts about America
Strategy memo calls for undermining public confidence in Bush

---

Posted: January 8, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Hoping for significant gains in the 2004 elections, Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President Bush by questioning his credibility while raising doubts about the U.S. at a time when American troops are deploying for war against Iraq, political website Capitol Hill Blue reports.

According to the report, a Democratic talking-points memo devised last year by senior party consultants and elected leaders outlines "a strategy to raise public doubts of the president's real intentions," including:


Claims that the war against Iraq is being fought over oil and for oil companies loyal to Bush and Republicans;

Claiming the administration "manufactured" evidence against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to convince Britain and other allies to join the war;

Suggestions that a wartime economy is the only way the White House can boost a sagging economic picture.
"It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values," the memo says, according to CHB, which obtained a copy. "To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America's true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush administration in waging war."

"The talking points were developed before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media," one Democratic consultant said. "No Democratic member of Congress will question the president's patriotism openly, but we will use the media and other surrogates to raise doubts."

CHB indicates that in the coming weeks Democratic lawmakers will question Bush's intentions regarding the looming Iraq war. Writers and broadcasters friendly to the Democratic Party "have already been provided talking points suggesting the war is about oil, not terrorism," CHB reported.

Not all Democrats are taking part, the newssite reported.

"My boss doesn't want anything to do with it," one senior Senate aide said Monday. "You don't undermine this country to win elections."

But others are willing to try any tactic to put the White House on the defensive and regain Democratic control of Congress.

"The real war isn't in Iraq," one Democratic consultant said. "It's right here at home, at the ballot box in 2004."

Other points Democrats will try to make in the coming weeks include the alleged influence and control over Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by the oil and defense industries, as well as other special interest groups; that the war on terrorism has failed thus far because al-Qaida founder and leader Osama bin Laden is reportedly still alive; that the U.S. is not prepared for another terror attack on its soil because the administration is preoccupied with Iraq; and that Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the Iraqi war.

"It's time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just how dangerous George W. Bush's policies are to the future of America," says the talking points memo, according to CHB.

Unnamed Democratic sources named Democratic National Committee chief Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt as party leaders who developed the talking-points memo.

"This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched-earth campaign," one DNC staffer said. "Take no prisoners. That's how you win elections."

So far, at least, Democrats may have trouble getting traction with their strategy.

Bush unveiled yesterday a $674 billion, 10-year plan to cut dividend taxes while imploring Congress to make his $1.35 trillion tax cut plan passed in 2001 permanent.

"Americans are scheduled to receive tax cuts in 2004 and 2006 ... and the time to deliver tax rate reductions is now, when they can do the most good for American businesses," Bush said in a speech to the Economic Club in Chicago.

The president also called on Congress to accelerate the tax break for married couples, scheduled for 2009, and speed up the tax credit for families with children, who aren't scheduled to get the break until 2010.

"I am asking the United States to abolish the double taxation of dividends," Bush said. "By ending this investment penalty, we will strengthen investor confidence. By ending double taxation of dividends, we will increase the return on investing to draw more money into the markets, to provide capital to build factories, to buy equipment, hire more people."

On Monday, the U.S. dollar rose against the euro and Japanese yen on news of Bush's stimulus package. Wall Street also responded positively to Bush's plan.

And according to at least one new survey, released yesterday, nearly two-thirds of Americans say when the stock market goes up it benefits the economy and all Americans.

Among investors, the poll found, 77 percent said a healthy stock market benefits everyone.

Meanwhile, surveys continue to show strong support across the country for Bush regarding a possible war with Iraq.

---

[kylaka]

Maybe the White House knew he was no threat. Saddam certainly had everybody else fooled though, including Bill Clinton and his entire band of mischief makers and the entire U.N. Security Council. Sheeesh, give it a break. Thankfully, there is ample evidence that Saddam snookered everybody except apparently Pilger.

[Williams]

First, it's hilarious that the big "expose'" is based on public statements made prior to 9/11. Some discovery. Second, these folks frankly got caught spouting pre 9/11 conventional wisdom. Everybody was in the mode of defending our status quo policy on Iraq. 9/11 changed everything.

People don't understand the following distinction: Sadaam Hussein could not break out of the box we had around him. But Sadaam Hussein had the means and motive to assist our terrorist enemies. 9/11 forced us to focus on the second fact.

[Paradox]

First, it's hilarious that the big "expose'" is based on public statements made prior to 9/11.

Right. Do a search on Pilger and you will see that he was saying essentially the same thing a year ago (august of 2002). Why bring it up again? Because a year ago, this kind of talk wasn't getting any traction. Now, with the election getting closer, the Democrats are willing accomplices to Pilgers distortions.

[kylaka]

Frankly the one thing I do not understand, is why Saddam did not comply with the UN weapons declaration requirements. After the 1991 Gulf War, and given the current president, he made the fools choice. Yet,I do not take him for a fool. What the hell was he thinking?

[ntnychik]

Devious Democrat Ping

[MEG33]

If I could answer that..I wouldn't be here...I'd be choosing which position I want in the Administration!