As spotted on Lisa Rein's blog:
US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'
Nope, as predicted by us "pinko peaceniks", Saddam didn't have jack-shit when it came to WMD... it had nothing to do with "hiding them all over the place", they simply didn't exist.
Now, this reminds me of the whole situation where the US and UK intelligence agencies handed over to the UN documents which claimed to show the WMD program, which the UN later ignored as "obvious forgeries".
At the time it became known they were forgeries, a lot of warmongers tried to foist the blame off on other folks who "might've had an interest in ousting Saddam"... given recent events, I'm wondering if anyone might actually come to the logical conclusion:
We completely manufactured a non-existent justification for destroying the political leadership of a sovereign nation. It can't be the civil rights issues, or we'd be going after half the planet (some of our allies have civil rights track records on a par with that which we just ousted).
How exactly does this make us anything other than an aggressor nation?
"Unnamed sources" are just wonderful people. "Unnamed sources" have told me that I have just won one BILLION dollars. "Unnamed sources" also said that I'm am one good-looking guy and that Drew Barrymore wants me bad.
"IF" the US/UK intelligence community were duped/that stupid about the whole WMD case, THEN I will heartily call for Bush's resignation along with Tenet, etc. However, this is something they have claimed they have "overwhelming evidence", which I highly doubt means cool pics from 3,000 miles up.
I did a quick google search for that topic, and everything in there referenced "why haven't they been found yet" instead of "the administration lied". I'll keep looking, but everything so far references "The Sunday Herald" or calls the president "Shrub".
Think about this in the bigger sense. These guys are career politicians. They have whole office wings that know what's going on, how people are going to react, etc. If they knew there weren't any WMDs, the spin would have been from the beginning the "horrible" conditions of the Iraqi people, not WMD violations. If it was for election results, why start the war TWO years before the election, do it DURING the months before the election.
Start getting Ari to say "no comment" on the issue and THEN you will have a story.
Also, why isn't this the lead story on the site? This would be HUGE international news. The lead story on Iraq is the kids going back to school.
Dunno, but it's in the top three stories on their news page:
http://www.sundayherald.com/news
Let's see....
"Pics of kids going back to school in Iraq" -or- "US/UK/Aussie Administration caught in a massive/huge/administration changing lie".
C'mon Derek, if the editor had a good feeling it even had a chance of being right, it would lead. It would lead on their website with 96pt print.
I'm finding it tough that the typical news outlets (and the uber-fast rumor mill) aren't a buzz with this. Even the usual suspects are just running the usual post war crap right now.
Maybe it's the neo-conservative-zoom-weebie in me, but this just doesn't hold water too well. IF this was the case, don't you think someone would have come out when the war was "going badly" and would have run with it? The "unnamed source" would still be in the same amount of hot water now or then (actually they probably would be safer if they let it run during the first few weeks of the war with the public opinion drawn down the middle).
The news media was, at first, all gung-ho for war because it meant good ratings, and after it started, because anyone who said anything negative about the war in the US got called things like "traitor", etc.
It does not surprise me at all that something like that would not attract the attention of the news media. They're caught in the swell of rampant nationalism something like you might have seen in 1930's Germany.
So you are effectively comparing today's government to those of the Nazi party in the 1930's? Please tell me I'm reading it wrong...
And just how did the New York Times just jump on the bandwagon? How about Pelosi? Why isn't she jumping all over this or even Galloway?
Maybe it's not the imperialistic right but the loony left who's off base on this one.
"Told you"
Come on, who here *really* belived bush when he said he was going in not for oil but for WMD, and then quietly changing that into "liberating iraq (and wmd)"? Anyone? I didn't think so....
I hope this does get more exposure though, but since I'm sure that the 'news' sites like CNN and Fox (ha!) don't want to see unpatriotic though... :)
Anyone want to take bets on when they go back to the "they hid them in syria" theory?
Please point out one guy that has been fired or has resigned from his position at a paper because the paper clearly editorialized him on a 100% true story. Any takers?
The only dismissal I saw was with the Times or Post where the guy clearly plagerized a story.
how could anyone watch/read the last three months of US news coverage and think that any US new organization would publish anything critical of the current administration? if you truly believe this, then i want whatever you are smoking.
re this bit:
'Now, this reminds me of the whole situation where the US and UK intelligence agencies handed over to the UN documents which claimed to show the WMD program, which the UN later ignored as "obvious forgeries".'
Actually -- the US/UK intelligence communities apparently did *not* do that, they say.
They leaked a story to the UK press last week about how immensely pissed off they were that the US and UK *governments* took their reports -- which basically said "well, we can't see any smoking guns, sorry" -- and spun them into something saying the opposite. cf: http://taint.org/2003/04/30/011134a.html :
'They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat,' the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, 'Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies', he added: 'You can draw your own conclusions.'
(Hey BTW -- looks like a good blog ;)
You're right. I should have said "we were TOLD that the intelligence communities handed over..."
I read that story as well.
So I guess the discovery of a mobile biological weapons lab doesn't mean much? Let me guess. The administration planted it. :-)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01
As I read that article, it still says nothing more than "this looks like one, but they can't find a shred of proof on it that it's actually seen use of any kind, and they're going to take it apart in the hopes of finding such."
And ... seriously ... ONE mobile weapons lab? I'd put good coin on the US having more than THAT in the way of banned weapons in our military's possession.
Yes, but we are the Alphas.