Seymour Hersh: Who Lied to Whom?
So is there anyone out there who still thinks there is incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has a nuclear program? If so you might want to read Seymour Hersh's article in last week's New Yorker magazine: "Who Lied to Whom?"
I think this article opens up a lot of interesting questions about the working relationship between the CIA and MI6, about the influence and sway these agencies have in relation to, respectively, the President and Prime Minister, about how and why the US and UK have allowed themselves to use sloppy and ill-informed evidence during this campaign, and about how the media, in the main, are more than happy to allow falsehoods like this to largely go unnoticed.
Oh, and anyone want to take a stab at answering Hersh's question: Who lied to whom?
I think this article opens up a lot of interesting questions about the working relationship between the CIA and MI6, about the influence and sway these agencies have in relation to, respectively, the President and Prime Minister, about how and why the US and UK have allowed themselves to use sloppy and ill-informed evidence during this campaign, and about how the media, in the main, are more than happy to allow falsehoods like this to largely go unnoticed.
Oh, and anyone want to take a stab at answering Hersh's question: Who lied to whom?
Comments
Originally posted by Retrograde
So is there anyone out there who still thinks there is incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has a nuclear program? If so you might want to read Seymour Hersh's article in last week's New Yorker magazine: "Who Lied to Whom?"
I think this article opens up a lot of interesting questions about the working relationship between the CIA and MI6, about the influence and sway these agencies have in relation to, respectively, the President and Prime Minister, about how and why the US and UK have allowed themselves to use sloppy and ill-informed evidence during this campaign, and about how the media, in the main, are more than happy to allow falsehoods like this to largely go unnoticed.
Oh, and anyone want to take a stab at answering Hersh's question: Who lied to whom?
The idea to attack Iraq preemptively was sold to Congress on the "evidence" of that big scary bogeyman of international relations....nuclear capacity. The "evidence" was not only faked, but appallingly badly faked. If the Administration knew all along that this "evidence" was faked, and used it to "justify" a war by lying to Congress and the people, then articles of impeachment is the way to go.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030407fa_fact1
Cheers
Scott
http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030317fa_fact
Hersh and the New Yorker have been on a roll for a while now, but the past couple of weeks have been pretty exciting.
After Enron et al. I thought things looked mighty rough for the Bush admin till the War on Terror brought out the worst in the American masses.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Is there any real chance this could snowball and result in impeachments, firings, ritual suicides or criminal trials?
After Enron et al. I thought things looked mighty rough for the Bush admin till the War on Terror brought out the worst in the American masses.
Just keep watching.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by SDW2001
Originally posted by Retrograde
I think one of the interesting things about this article is how much the British Government is implicated in all of this. I don't think anyone could consider this a British conspiracy (the US is up to its neck in "incompetence" here which is a polite way of saying "We lied, but please don't make us responsible") but there is the possibility that the British took a highly proactive role in this. Tony Blair may not be the "poodle" the press like to picture him as, in this instance he looks as hawkish as anyone. Perhaps the British in some ways wanted this war more than the US? If we were to assume this then does anyone want to take a stab at why the Brits may have wanted the war more than the Americans?
Yeah, Blair's the one who masterminded it all...
Even Gumbi couldn't make that stretch.
Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie
Yeah, Blair's the one who masterminded it all...
Even Gumbi couldn't make that stretch.
Well, someone made a conscious decision to fake it. The highest levels of both governments either a) didn't question it, which is highly unlikely considering its prominance,* b) investigated it only a little, knew it was questionable and went ahead with it c) knew it was fake and went ahead anyway or d) ordered the fake. If you believe your officials can run your country better than a cockroach could, pick between b, c or d and realize that you have been intentionally decieved by your officials so they can promote their agenda.
*if this is the case, god help us for having the most incompetent citizens running our countries. That incompetence alone should be enough to remove them from office.
Originally posted by Retrograde
I think one of the interesting things about this article is how much the British Government is implicated in all of this.
Why the Brits? I'm not denying it, I'm just curious about the British motives in all of this.
Originally posted by bunge
Why the Brits? I'm not denying it, I'm just curious about the British motives in all of this.
That's baffled me all along, as well. I mean, why Blair would have gotten in bed with Bush when the anti-Bush/anti-US sentiment over there is RAGING is beyond me. (The last time I was in London [about two years ago], Bush arrived about 2 days after I did. I was fairly consistently peppered with questions in pubs when people heard me speak [especially since I have a southern accent], and one idiot woman actually started screaming at me for being an American and asking me what I have to say for my government. When she realized I was more left than she was, she shut up. There are, of course, idiots and rednecks everywhere.)
Anyway, I sometimes jokingly say that Blair's motivation is guilt over all of this business in the ME being England's fault.
[aside: Three funny Bush stories from his first trip to England. 1) Bush, while visiting the British Museum, was asked by a little British schoolgirl what the White House was like. He replied, "It's white." 2) When asked what he thought about Blair upon meeting him, Bush said "He's a real good guy." 3) When asked what he thought about meeting the Queen, he said either "It was neat" or "She's neat." I can't remember. This was Bush's FIRST TRIP ABROAD. EVER. IN HIS UNBEARBLY PRIVILEGED LIFE.]
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by mrmister
sammi jo, you have a fake shakespeare quote as your sig.
Proof that irony is not dead.
--
The nuclear stuff was debunked well before military action went underway and was even acknowledged as such by the administration.
DOOOOM
GLOOOOM
Originally posted by groverat
The nuclear stuff was debunked well before military action went underway and was even acknowledged as such by the administration.
But was never replaced with any substantive evidence of anything.
Originally posted by bunge
But was never replaced with any substantive evidence of anything.
It didn't need to be, the troops were in place and the timetables took over.
By that point there really didn't need to be a reason, we were going to 'kick ass'
which, enthusiasm for the release of aggression after a national tragedy like 911, is probably the real reason just under the surface of our collective consciouse anyway . . .
Originally posted by midwinter
Three funny Bush stories from his first trip to England. 1) Bush, while visiting the British Museum, was asked by a little British schoolgirl what the White House was like. He replied, "It's white." 2) When asked what he thought about Blair upon meeting him, Bush said "He's a real good guy." 3) When asked what he thought about meeting the Queen, he said either "It was neat" or "She's neat." I can't remember. This was Bush's FIRST TRIP ABROAD. EVER. IN HIS UNBEARBLY PRIVILEGED LIFE.]
SHOCKING!!!
I shall renounce my U.S. citizenship immediately.
Originally posted by bunge
But was never replaced with any substantive evidence of anything.
Well that was kind of the point.
There was no evidence provided for things there should've been lots of evidence for.
All under the UN umbrella, of course, and the issue of UN disarmament.
"If Iraq says they destroyed this stuff we knew they have and they provide no documentation we should just assume they did and keep moving forward."
Originally posted by pscates
I shall renounce my U.S. citizenship immediately.
To avoid you looking like those hypocritical lefties that claim they'll leave the country under certain circumstances and then don't, let's compromise. How about you just renounce your president instead?