The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
Yes, I know this thread existed before, but there's been some big new lies. Hans Blix has interviewed with the NYT and has contested what has been said by the Bush Admin. Let me begin with what cooperative research pointed out:
[quote]January 28, 2003. Powell’s comments after the weapons inspectors’ January 27 interim report.
(a) Allegation.
(i) Powell said, “The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.” [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
(5) January 30, 2003. State of the Union address.
(a) Allegation.
(i) President Bush said, “Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.” [US President 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that he knew of no evidence supporting that claim. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
<hr></blockquote>
In fact, Hans Blix's recent interview with the NYT showed that he feels the Bush admin is misrepresenting the inspector's finding, when not flat out lying, that is.
Here is the article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html"; target="_blank">Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War</a>
The title says it all.
some excerpts:
[quote]
THE INSPECTOR
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON
NITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.
...
Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.
...
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."
More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
<hr></blockquote>
In other news, an NYT op-ed by a former CIA Iraq analyst tells that the US concluded that it was Iran that gassed Halabja:
[quote]In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: “[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. … This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.” [New York Times 1/31/03]
<hr></blockquote>
Looks like they are really hurting for facts. Do we really want to be lead to war justified by an increasing number of falsehoods and stretched truths?
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[quote]January 28, 2003. Powell’s comments after the weapons inspectors’ January 27 interim report.
(a) Allegation.
(i) Powell said, “The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.” [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
(5) January 30, 2003. State of the Union address.
(a) Allegation.
(i) President Bush said, “Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.” [US President 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that he knew of no evidence supporting that claim. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
<hr></blockquote>
In fact, Hans Blix's recent interview with the NYT showed that he feels the Bush admin is misrepresenting the inspector's finding, when not flat out lying, that is.
Here is the article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html"; target="_blank">Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War</a>
The title says it all.
some excerpts:
[quote]
THE INSPECTOR
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON
NITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.
...
Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.
...
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."
More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
<hr></blockquote>
In other news, an NYT op-ed by a former CIA Iraq analyst tells that the US concluded that it was Iran that gassed Halabja:
[quote]In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: “[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. … This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.” [New York Times 1/31/03]
<hr></blockquote>
Looks like they are really hurting for facts. Do we really want to be lead to war justified by an increasing number of falsehoods and stretched truths?
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Comments
Sorry, the old thread was a wealth of good knowledge.
<strong>I totally agree. It's all about oil and he's lying about everything. GREAT article!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
YAY!!!!!! Jubilation!!!
In fact, that whole interview (I read it over breakfast) was all about Hans's gut-feelings and opinions. He didn't THINK this, he didn't THINK that. He freely admits he's seen almost none of the intelligence used to make the claims he "refutes". Even when he has, well, when you see a dozen trucks racing into a weapons compound the day before you inspect it, you're welcome to THINK they're hauling super-duty vacuum cleaners in to make the place look good for your arrival. You're also welcome to THINK the Iraqis surely couldn't have your rooms bugged and your entourage penetrated. But then the rest of the world is welcome to THINK you need to retire to a nice, quiet chateau in the mountains somewhere.
As far as the Bush admin lying, both of them have. For some examples that you can't argue with:
.Bush and Blair citing ficticious IAEA reports numerous time, even after getting caught, as ultimate justification for attacking Iraq. Bush even said, "what more proof do you need?"
.Lying about Iraqi troop build-ups along saudi arabia, saying that Iraq needed to be stopped before they attacked the kingdom. Not only was it revealed (through sat. photos) that there was no such buildup, but an attack on Saudi Arabia would have been contrary to what Iraq was actually doing.
.Everyone knows about the little Iraqi peasant girl who turned out to be a daughter of a diplomat.
And now we have Blix saying that Bush and Powell are falsifying facts of the inspections he is running. Towel, unless Powell has some stunning revelation next week about some unknown source for this particular info (and it can't be from inside the team because then the US would be in violation), all of the Bush Admin's intel concerning the two things mentioned above comes from Blix's team only. If Blix says there is nothing from his team that would support these statements then there isn't. Powell went so far as to say that the info was from inspectors, Blix is saying it isn't. Blix is the inspectors. There is not two ways about this one.
We shall see when the speech occurs. Until then giant, you are blowing just as much smoke as anyone else here.
[quote]<strong>The White House has been regularly receiving the NSA transcripts ever since the inspectors returned to Iraq late last year. The damning nature of some of the transcripts, officials said, explain President Bush?s occasional outbursts of anger at the Iraqis, as well as the willingness by Powell?who had previously cautioned against war?to lay out a damning picture of Iraqi noncompliance in next week?s speech. One official who had dinner with Powell recently said the secretary remarked how ?we have a stronger case than many people realize.? <hr></blockquote></strong>
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
---Rummy
Until then giant, you are blowing just as much smoke as anyone else here.
<hr></blockquote>
the three older examples I mentioned are not blowing smoke. At least one of my two main new examples is not blowing smoke since powell said he recieved his info from Blix and Blix says he didn't. You can't argue with that.
Fact is, this thread is about the undeniable fact that they are lying, not about justification for an attack or whether saddam is being decietful (we all know he is).
I am also adding that I would have to see proof of a serious and immediate threat to the lives of Americans here in the US before I support a full-scale takeover of Iraq.
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[quote] Mr. Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam Hussein was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday.
"I haven't pleaded for continuing inspections because I haven't seen a change of attitude on the part of Iraq," he said.<hr></blockquote>
right there is material breach. give it up. everything after that is window dressing.
and if you read to the end
[quote] Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities.
"It was a wild goose chase." one diplomat said.
But an administration official said there was "good reason" to believe the site was suspect, and that Unmovic had waited a week before visiting it.
"Whether something was removed, or whether it was ever there remains an open question," he complained. He noted that although the C.I.A. was still providing inspectors with sensitive information, concerns remained about Unmovic's ability to safeguard it.
"Iraqis may have bugged offices or hotel rooms of some Unmovic people," he said, noting there were "several examples" in which Iraqis seemed to have either "advance knowledge, or very good luck in going to places before inspectors."<hr></blockquote>
"Yeah, they got nothing to hide, nothing at all. They're innocent." (if you believe that statement, this <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_matter_020410.html"; target="_blank">link's</a> for you)
No. How can I say this again without repeating myself? What you have is Blix saying he doesn't believe what Bush is saying (about leaks, about agents posing as scientists, about convoys running material to Syria) when he ADMITS that he hasn't seen ANY of the evidence/intelligence that had led Bush to make those accusations. For the few instances where Blix has had some perspective on the issues (his talks with the agents/scientists or his view of Iraqi convoys cleaning up weapons sites ahead of inspectors) he has chosen to offer a different interpretation of the facts - but again, based only on his perspective, without seeing the more complete picture that the US gov has.
Need I say more?
" In other words, some of the "scientists" sounded like idiots (maybe THOSE were the agents?), and the rest could have been better coached. Match that against intercepts (supposedly, we'll see next week) and it will stand as firmly as a candle in a hurricane "
Pure speculation.
[ 02-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>How do we know Hans Blix isn't lying? </strong><hr></blockquote>
It doesn't matter if he is. Bush supposedly has the evidence. Show it and it doesn't matter what Blix says. Don't show it and you suffer whatever whims Blix might be feeling on any given day.
Evidence. Show it, and everyone will stand with you. Don't show it or don't have it and everyone should stand against.
Powell is going to use NSA intercepts that are damning.
Have a nice day.
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0cv=CB10"; target="_blank">Hello, Mr. Stevenson? </a>
<strong>Hey, I'm all for seeing "the evidence", but I have a feeling that even if the most damning evidence imaginable is presented in the end, the anti-war people will simply move to another reason to not go to war. Basically, it doesn't matter what is on the table, they don't want war, period (so debating on the matter is pretty well pointless, of course). This is already apparent in the manner they choose to bring arguments to bear in these topics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have a winner!
For the "anti-war" left the most important thing is stopping the US. Peace is not the goal. It's a little know fact that the anti-war movement is funded by front groups for various "workers" parties. They are against the American way of life and so they support anything that checks US power in the hope of weakening the US in the end.
<strong>
It's a little know fact that the anti-war movement is funded by front groups for various "workers" parties. They are against the American way of life and so they support anything that checks US power in the hope of weakening the US in the end.</strong><hr></blockquote>
got links for that one? i have a hard time believinng it's anything more than idealistic students with more time than real life experience on their hands.