|
Author
|
Topic: No proof Iraq tied to 9/11 / Blix story
|
K
VoivodFan
Member # 6
|
posted September 18, 2003 11:22
    
No proof Iraq tied to 9/11: Bush
Disputes idea held by majority in U.S.
But says Saddam, Al Qaeda linked
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON—U.S. President George W. Bush conceded for the first time yesterday that the United States had no evidence indicating Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Bush made the comment in a brief encounter with reporters at the White House, an apparent bid to answer critics who have accused him of linking the Iraq war and the terrorist attacks to justify an ongoing occupation, which is responsible for mounting American deaths and draining an economy already mired in deficit. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said. Toronto Star full Story ::: Blix Claims US-UK Spin on Iraq WMD
By Mike Wendling
CNSNews.com London Bureau Chief
September 18, 2003 London (CNSNews.com) - Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said in an interview Thursday that the British and U.S. governments used exaggeration and "spin" in presenting evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. But the British government denied the claims, saying that the existence of banned weapons was a "matter of fact" and that allied troops on the ground only need more time to find them. Blix attacked a September dossier on Iraq issued by the British government, and particularly a claim inside the document stating that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) available for launch within 45 minutes. The dossier's contents have come under scrutiny during the Hutton Inquiry, a probe into the death of David Kelly, a weapons expert who advised the British Ministry of Defense. "The U.K. paper that came out in September last year with the famous words about the 45 minutes, when you read the text exactly I get the impression it wants to convey to the reader and lead the reader to conclusions that are a little further-reaching than the text needs to mean," Blix told BBC radio. "One can read it restrictively but one can also lead to far-reaching conclusions and I think many people did," he said. "Advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms they do not quite believe in but you expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility," Blix said. "I understand they have to simplify things when they explain them, but nevertheless expect them to be more reliable," he said. Blix compared the search for WMD in Iraq to a witch hunt. CNS News Story ::: Bush lied, Blair lied, they all are liars.
How many more of theyre lies do you believe?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
K
VoivodFan
Member # 6
|
posted September 19, 2003 11:39
Its funny you should say that, WC.
Here is an Article from Chicago:::: Big lie on Iraq comes full circle September 19, 2003 BY ANDREW GREELEY Advertisement
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief (director of communications, in the current parlance), once said that if you are going to lie, you should tell a big lie. That may be good advice, but the question remains: What happens when people begin to doubt the big lie? Herr Goebbels never lived to find out. Some members of the Bush administration may be in the process of discovering that, given time, the big lie turns on itself.
The president has insisted that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, a continuation of the administration's effort to link Iraq to the attack on the World Trade Center. While almost three-quarters of the public believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attack, the polls after the president's recent speech show that less than half believe that Iraq is the ''central front'' of the war on terrorism. Moreover, the majority believe that the war has increased the risk of terrorism. A shift is occurring in the middle, which is neither clearly pro-Bush nor clearly anti-Bush. The big lie is coming apart. There is not and never has been any evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack. None. The implication of such involvement was an attempt to deceive, a successful attempt at the big lie. I'm not sure that the president knows it is a lie, however. Also, the weapons of mass destruction story was never true. It now appears that Saddam panicked in 1995 when his sons-in-law defected to Jordan and revealed the truth about his weapons development. He immediately ordered the destruction of all the evidence. The U.N. team before the war would have no more found any weapons than the Americans after the war. Again, I'm not sure that the president knew the weapons argument was false. Perhaps some of his advisers believed it, or, as the Irish say, half-believed it. However, the American people now seem to suspect that they haven't been told the truth. Why, then, did the United States invade Iraq if the reasons given for the war were so problematic? It would seem that the answer was the same as the reason as for climbing Mt. Everest: Iraq was there. The administration recited the ''war on terror'' mantra as a pretext for doing something that its intellectuals had wanted to do for years. No one in the administration expected that such a war would lead to more dangers of terrorism rather than less. The mantra has been used as an excuse for many things, from the Patriot Act to drilling for oil in Alaska. It won the 2002 election for the Republicans. It is supposed to win the presidential election next year. Will the big lie work? Perhaps, though it would seem that some are growing skeptical about its constant repetition. Moreover, the corollary mantra, which says that Americans must make sacrifices to win the war on terror, is also in trouble. Who makes the sacrifices? The rich Americans celebrating their tax ''refunds''? The Republican leadership who have few if any sons and daughters in harm's way? Giant corporations like Dick Cheney's Halliburton or Bechtel? No, the sacrifices will be made mostly by the sons and daughters of the poor and the working class who must fight the war. Jessica Lynch joined the army so she could get money for a college education. Her roommate Lori Piestewa, who was killed in action, joined because she was a Native American single mother who needed the money to raise her two children. There will be sacrifices made by schoolchildren who depend on state and local money, which has disappeared into the ''war effort,'' the elderly who will not benefit from prescription drug reform; the working men whose overtime pay the president wishes to cut; the chronically unemployed whose jobs have disappeared, and the future generations who will have to work to pay off the president's huge debt. ''War on terror'' is a metaphor. It is not an actual war, like the World War or the Vietnamese or Korean wars. It is rather a struggle against fanatical Islamic terrorists, exacerbated if not caused by the conflict in Palestine. When one turns a metaphor into a national policy, one not only misunderstands what is going on, one begins to slide toward the big lie. One invades Iraq because one needed a war. Chicago Sun Times ::: As it comes out more and more in the Mainstream American Press that Bush DID Lie...and continues to lie...maybe Americans will realize that they need to keep a better watch on who they "Elect" to Office.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KnickerZohnonnof
VoivodFan
Member # 272
|
posted September 19, 2003 17:01
quote:
Originally posted by King Kula:
Knicker...From what i remember, Blix has stated such a belief before now. I remember reading other things he said and he has felt this way all along as far as i can tell.
I trust Blix completely. He is a very smart man.
Hans Blix is intelligent, but he has not stated his belief that Iraq disposed all its weapons ten years ago before. He has intimated that the previous UN inspections soon after GWI had destroyed a significant quantity of Iraqi weapons. But his latest comments do differ from previous statements quote:
Originally posted by King Kula:
I also believe the BBC in the Kelly affair.
It is true that Kelly probably never should have spoke to a Reporter about such sensitive issues...and i believe that he was murdered for doing so.
We will see how it all comes out though.
As far as the police investigation goes all the forensic evidence collected suggests he committed suicide and no other person was present around the time of his death. I think the BBC screwed up in an almighty fashion by allowing Gilligan to speak so freely without actually vetting what he was going to broadcast. The UK Government's conduct is far from a shining example of virtue, but there is no doubt in my mind that Gilligan is the man who fired the first salvo in the chain of events that lead to Kelly's death. Media feeding frenzy I believe its called. Remember well this comment made by a prominent media manager: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. I believe it rings very true in this case. However, Hutton will make his report in good time. I believe then we will be in a better position to make more considered judgements about this tragic affair. quote:
Originally posted by King Kula:
Now...the Inconsistencies concerining Iraq are indeed starting to show...inch by inch.
Everything that i am reading from Global sources (and American ones) are starting to question the motives behind the Invasion.
More and more reports are coming out about VP Dick Cheney and his awarding lucrative contracts to Companies he is still on the Payroll with! That is a bigtime conflict of interest.It will take time for more lies to come to light.
On whose side exactly? Not ours that is certain. Beginning to question the motives??? Are you blind?!?! The UK press has been full of questions on the motives for this war for almost a year, and still our Government has held firm! Apart from the Kelly inquiry and in spite of all the press here, not one news agency has uncovered any wrongdoing on the part of the UK Government. There may well be a conflict of interests concerning awarding of contracts for reconstruction but that is an entirely separate issue from the war and one that your country needs to investigate for itself. You do have the power to unseat him in 2004 if you so wish. Remember that unlike Iraq until the Allied occupation you do actually live in a democracy and have a vote! Now all you need is a decent opposition...Oh, don't you have a palpable opposition either? Well how about that. Just like the UK Conservatives...too busy fighting amongst themselves to look at the bigger picture!
| IP: Logged
|
|
K
VoivodFan
Member # 6
|
posted September 19, 2003 17:44
Yeah...the Democratic Party has gone astray the past few years and all we are left with
are War-Mongering Republicans and Conservative types.
I forsee Bush being re-"Elected" and the America having to endure another 4 years
of decisions based on making the wealthy more so and the poor, poorer.Meanwhile, due to the enormous Trade Deficit, the IMF is warning that the Dollar
could collapse at any moment.
This would be catastrophic on a Global level. Instead of Invading other Soverign Nations for theyre resources (and, oh, yes...to bestow "democracy" upon them)...Bush and his band of Criminals should have the ECONOMY as theyre #1 priority.
I know that I sure would! Every time they say that the Unemployment rate is looking better...i laugh.
Because i know that it is pure Disinformation. But...I have gone off the real subject here.
Concerning the Kelly "Suicide"...there are too many irregularities for it to be as the Police say.
I have seen a quote from the EMS Technician who first arrived on scene.
He said that #1...there was very little blood. Like his body had been dumped there.
And...#2...that he found EKG monitors still on his chest. (Those little round things...i forget the correct name of them).
This would imply, to me, that Dr, Kelly was:
1. Abducted
2. Drugged (Truth syrum perhapse?)
3. Overdosed
4. Wrists cut for appearance of suicide.
5. Hastily dumped in the Park. Because of Dr. Kelly's Classified knowledge, of course the Forensics Report would be Fixed. I believe the Death Orders came directly from his Boss.
The guy who said that "In hindsight, he would have suspended Dr. Kelly for speaking to the BBC." So...Once again...I still believe the BBC's Gillian.
I do respect Lord Hutton's quest for the truth though.
Hopefully he will get to the bottom of the whole affair, although you can bet that
nobody in higher Office will be prosecuted for this Murder.
| IP: Logged
|
|
KnickerZohnonnof
VoivodFan
Member # 272
|
posted September 19, 2003 20:33
Yes, quotes...we all love those. So you believe the words of just one person who was at the scene for a very short time do you? I do not think for one minute he was murdered, after all the beans had already been spilt hadn't they? What was the point of killing him? The stable door was well and truly open and the horse had long since departed. Nope, there was and is no logic to your assertion. We know very well that Kelly was far from happy with the situation, his wife and daughter both saw a change in his pshyche, as did many of his associates, and both are pretty certain he did take his own life. They are the people I am more likely to believe, not some jumped up journo with a story to twist and a career to enhance. Kelly did get put through the wringer by a very aggressive commons select committee and I think it was this, coupled with the ridiculous media circus, that ensued that sent a very private, sensitive man over the edge. For this both the Government and the BBC have to take responsiblity for what was created; the Government for some of its tactics during the few days Kelly was in the public domain and the journalist Gilligan, who in my mind has told many lies himself and whose story is riddled with inconsistencies when compared to his notes. quote:
I believe the Death Orders came directly from his Boss.
The guy who said that "In hindsight, he would have suspended Dr. Kelly for speaking to the BBC."
Now you are being completely ridiculous. This isn't the Ba'ath party! Comments like that merely reduce your credibility, not that you have much to be honest. As for the Hutton inquiry, one of the nice things about the British constitution is that in the context of this inquiry he has a pretty free reign over what he does. Constitutionally the Government cannot touch him unless it is abundantly clear he is mismanaging it. When he comes to his judgement he reports and the Government has to endure whatever is said, and then the rest of us have a field day absorbing the detail. Remember Scott, one of the most embarrassing moments of the Conservative Govt 1992-1997? Every facet of that administration got absolutely murdered by him and there wasn't a thing John Major could do about it. Labour had a field day and it totally destroyed the Conservative's credibility. This inquiry has the same kind of freedom so wherever there is wrongdoing expect no mercy, and expect heads to roll on both sides of the fence.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
