Home | Community | Message Board


Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
The Big Lie
    #1940278 - 09/22/03 12:20 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

THE BIG LIE Sep 22 2003


JOHN PILGER REVEALS WMDs WERE JUST A PRETEXT FOR PLANNED WAR ON IRAQ

John Pilger


EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "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."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."

Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.

At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London.

An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.

CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.

On that day, Bush signed a top- secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."

The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."

It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's misdeeds.

The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.

Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."

"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.

"All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."

The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington.

BOLTON boasted to me that the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the invasion was "quite low if you look at the size of the military operation."

For raising the question of civilian casualties and asking which country America might attack next, I was told: "You must be a member of the Communist Party."

Over at the Pentagon, Feith, No 3 to Rumsfeld, spoke about the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had been killed. When I pressed him, an army colonel ordered my cameraman: "Stop the tape!" In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis is unmentionable. They are non-people; the more they resist the Anglo-American occupation, the more they are dismissed as "terrorists".

It is this slaughter in Iraq, a crime by any interpretation of an international law, that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd. While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games, the spectre of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and witnesses to this great crime are not called.

Jo Wilding, a young law graduate, is one such witness. She was one of a group of human rights observers in Baghdad during the bombing. She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and cluster bombs exploded around them. Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries, interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes.

She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there were no anaesthetics or painkillers. She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children. She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft. "Nothing could explain them," she told me, "other than that it was a deliberate attack on civilians."

As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not hearing such crucial evidence? And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and none of them from the dock?

A special report by John Pilger, Breaking The Silence: Truth And Lies In The War On Terror, will be shown tonight on ITV1 at 10.45 pm.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The Big Lie [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940390 - 09/22/03 01:09 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

if there really weren't any weapons (which does seem pretty probable), and there wasn't any security threat to the US, it was a bad call to lie to the american people and use up american resources, endanger american troops, and tarnish america's image to fight that war. as far as the iraqi people go... they made out like bandits. i'm not feeling bad for them at all... i'm feeling bad for american taxpayers and soldiers.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 12 years, 1 month
Re: The Big Lie [Re: Xlea321]
    #1940529 - 09/22/03 01:48 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

I think just about any idiot knows that about now...sad thing is i bet most americans still think it was saddam behind 9/11, and that they saved the world from a nuclear crazed dictator....truly sad....like a flock of herded sheep.


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Edited by Azmodeus (09/22/03 05:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The Big Lie [Re: Azmodeus]
    #1942005 - 09/22/03 08:38 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Where the hell do you get your intel fro az. I live in america and i have never met a single person who thought that.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 841
Loc: In my pants
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
Re: The Big Lie [Re: d33p]
    #1942367 - 09/22/03 10:28 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Then ask around. Ask at random. I did this at work two weeks ago. EVERY single person I work with other than my Iraqi friend (who tells people he's Lebanese just to make his life easier) believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 AND that at least 1/2 of the hijakers on 9/11 were Iraqi.

You've probably met TONS of people who thought that... you just didn't bother accumulating the data.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: The Big Lie [Re: GernBlanston]
    #1942461 - 09/22/03 10:51 PM (13 years, 5 months ago)

Your terms were different from those of az's. I could bealive people thinking what you just said gern except about the highjakers being iraqi. I havent heard anyone say they thought they were iraqi, mainly i hear people saying how all those "arab terrorists" were those "saudi fucks" or something to that extent.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
Re: The Big Lie [Re: d33p]
    #1942843 - 09/23/03 12:34 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Well, Osama bin Laden intentionally picked a Saudi majority for the WTC Attack to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and the United States. Some people think he's going to try to do the same with the U.S. and the U.K.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* New military offensive against Rumsfeld zorbman 562 7 04/20/06 07:16 AM
by barfightlard
* Rumsfeld lying on camera.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Revelation 3,588 127 04/22/04 07:19 AM
by zeronio
* The lying game Xlea321 456 5 06/01/04 02:33 PM
by Xlea321
* john pilger article - the war of lies goes on mr crisper 600 2 07/05/02 11:59 PM
by ruskifile
* Neocon Lie Finally Debunked: Osama Not in Cahoots with Saddam Visionary Tools 424 3 03/11/08 08:45 PM
by zappaisgod
* "The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair
( 1 2 all )
Phred 2,135 20 03/14/04 02:45 PM
by silversoul7
* Did the President Lie about Iraq?
( 1 2 3 all )
lonestar2004 3,565 50 06/25/05 01:42 AM
by Swami
* Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
( 1 2 all )
Learyfan 2,024 38 06/20/03 07:08 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
462 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:

Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.081 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.