John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. B

Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, "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." Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.

www.news.com.au...

I can't wait to hear what they have to say to this one. The # is going to hit the fan soon.

I'm certain it will have little to no effect here in the U.S., but at least its more evidence they knew Saddam had nothing.

This better create outrage in the U.S.!!!!!!!!


I get really angry when the truth is told and people dont give a # about it. I say we somehow spam this article into as many email accounts as possible. I do not think spam is a good thing but it needs to be done.

I am #ing sick of people getting away with lies and other #. I am fed up and will not let it happen.

Originally posted by heelstone
I'm certain it will have little to no effect here in the U.S., but at least its more evidence they knew Saddam had nothing.

I am interested in why you believe this.

What specifically is it that is wrong with the US - that the net effect of full knowledge of the fabrication of the cause of unilaterally invading another country, could be nothing?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I am interested in why you believe this.

What specifically is it that is wrong with the US - that the net effect of full knowledge of the fabrication of the cause of unilaterally invading another country, could be nothing?

At this point I don't think any amount of evidence will make the U.S. public aware of wrongdoing. Partly due to incredible apathy by the general populace, partly due to suppression. With the media completely under the thumb of the government, I'm not even sure what amount of this sort of thing will make it into public consumption.

I agree to an extent:

I do believe that the general population has been severely dumbed down to the point that they will believe virtually anything that rolls across a TV screen to them.

"Be happy citizen of Oceania, your choco ration is being raised from 25 grams to 20 grams"

However, the media is about 80% controlled by the liberals, who are feeding the anti-Bush rhetoric to beat the band, and I dont know that the American people know exactly what to believe right now.

If anyone seems to be holding out any hope of an impeachment, considering the very tight grip the republicans have on both houses, I wouldnt hold my breath on that ever being a possibility.

Also, I have full expectations that rather soon, we will see yet another 911 attack, which is yet again change the US outlook on things, and will reestablish the hard nationalism and blind allegiance to the Cabal that happened after 911.

Sorry kids but GWB saved the USA's butt.
For that everyone that lives there and in Canada, and Mexico and anywhere else close by should get down on their hands and knees and thank god!

The socialists made annother of many attempts to drop kick this country to the ground but failed once again.

The last post has no grounding whatsoever, and seems to be in keeping with an approach of periodically spamming the board with right wing nonsense.

The issue at hand in the topic was the fabrication of evidence in support of an invasion and occupation effort.

The comment above bears no resemblance to the subject matter at hand, it is insulting and irrelevant.

Unintelligent and not good form.

Originally posted by THENEO
Sorry kids but GWB saved the USA's butt.
For that everyone that lives there and in Canada, and Mexico and anywhere else close by should get down on their hands and knees and thank god!

The socialists made annother of many attempts to drop kick this country to the ground but failed once again.

Durr.....yeah communists are bad m'kay... George Bush is god and can do no wrong. He's stoppin' the reds from takin' over the country and makin' Clinton's phallus president.

People constantly badmouth Colonel but not this guy.... amazing.

Flinx

If the guy has a point to make and has a serious contribution to a topic, even if the position is a polar opposite to me, I wouldn't complain.

There wasn't a relevant contribution here.

Maybe there will be more thoughtfulness, or maybe there will just be more spamming of nonsense. The "Ignore" button can be used for irritants when necessary.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Flinx

If the guy has a point to make and has a serious contribution to a topic, even if the position is a polar opposite to me, I wouldn't complain.

There wasn't a relevant contribution here.

Maybe there will be more thoughtfulness, or maybe there will just be more spamming of nonsense. The "Ignore" button can be used for irritants when necessary.

Yeah, good point. I'm feeling pretty disgruntled and irritable at the today, sorry.

I wish I had never gotten into the whole political arena here on ATS, seeing as how my real interest is in UFOs, paranormal, and ancient civilizations.


[Edited on 9/24/2003 by Flinx]

John Pilger is the man!

I was in Sociology class with his daughter, she was alright!

Anyway, I saw his tv prog the other day and I'm sure he played an audio of that Colin Powell statement, but something else he uncovered was footage of the Taliban government being driven around the states by the US government, during the talks about the oil pipeline.

This better create outrage in the U.S.!!!!!!!!

It will never hit prime-time news (6 o'clock or 11 o'clock), and therefore will only be known to those who give a damn, (and that's a minority)....

Here's the text of Powell's speech:
www.usembassy-israel.org.il...

far from a smoking gun for Pilger

"THENEO", if you hadn't guessed from his retarded moniker, is a twat.

The full text of the part in question (thanks Bob):

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions--the fact that the sanctions exist-- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

Pilger also interview Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of Bush senior who told him the case for war "was 95 per cent charade."

However Bob has a point. It is not a huge smoking gun uncovering a plot on its own, Powell still asserts that Saddam was seeking to obtain weapons, but it is indicative of the charade that was to come.

The point is that in this statement he is making it clear that Saddams efforts to obtain weapons had to that point failed, and he is clearly boasting that the reason it failed and he had no weapons capability to speak of was because of U.S efforts, and that it was the U.S who was responsible for this state of affairs.

Powell went even further in May of 2001 when he stated that Saddam had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". He claimed again that America had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

He wasn�t the only one talking along those lines. In August 2001 Condoleezza rice said "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."

Now if that was the thinking at the time - why the sudden, almost polar, turnaround?

This was not what Bush and Blair where saying in the run up to war. So in that way it certainly shows deceit in the subsequent justification for war. (As if we didn�t know that already�)

I�ve no doubt the leader of this dramatic turnaround and the constructor of the war, and quite possibly the real president, was, of course � Donald Rumsfeld.

Originally posted by THENEO
Sorry kids but GWB saved the USA's butt.
For that everyone that lives there and in Canada, and Mexico and anywhere else close by should get down on their hands and knees and thank god!

The socialists made annother of many attempts to drop kick this country to the ground but failed once again.

This is what happens when you watch too much Matrix kids.

It's just not anything conclusive. Powell was talking about the no-fly zones.

On the flip side, Blix, the UN, et al, has stated that Iraq had and failed to account for WMD's. If this was brought up again, would that suffice as necassary evidence that was need to forcefully disarm Saddam?

The whole thing, no matter how you feel, is political.

Okay boys tell me of one politician in the past 100 years that has not lied and then I will agree with anything any of you wrote here.

Next question....

Oh and I am waiting for the chance to rip each and every one of you apart.

Oh and while we are at it why is it all you British Isle types that are slagging me?

Why are you all left wing?

Why do you all hate the US?

Let's talk about your countries for awhile or are they too boring?

Or is it because you have simply become insignificant these days?

OH and if you are left wing and I am right wing then why are you okay and I'm bad?

Any mods out there want to answer any of these questions because the good members here are not mature enough to do so as adults.

"THE NEO" - look mate, everyone�s entitled to be stupid but you're seriously abusing the privilege.

Bob88 -
He wasn't taking about no-fly zones in the paragraph I posted; it was the second answer to a two part question on no-fly zones and sanctions. In the paragraph before he was talking about no-fly zones, in the one in question he was talking about sanctions and there effect on Saddams arsenal.

In the comments from May and Condoleezza Rice�s comments, they weren�t' talking about no-fly zones either.

In regard to the U.N and Hans Blix, the last word from him was that he thought Iraq had destroyed its WMD's ten years ago:

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991"

"If [Iraq] didn't have any [WMDs] after 1991, there must be some explanation why they behaved as they did. They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access [to weapons inspectors] and so forth," Mr Blix said.

"You can put up a sign on your door saying "Beware of the Dog" without having a dog," he added.

news.bbc.co.uk...

posted by Bob88
On the flip side, Blix, the UN, et al, has stated that Iraq had and failed to account for WMD's. If this was brought up again, would that suffice as necessary evidence that was need to forcefully disarm Saddam?

No it wouldn't, from what I've already said and the fact that they never advocated using force in the first place, only inspections. If Saddam had continued to mess around with inspectors the U.S could, with a bit of effort, have gotten a U.N mandate to invade Iraq. I know all the 'twelve years' stuff, but in light of Sept 11 and the changed political climate it wouldn't have been hard to get the U.N on side if they had let the inspections run there course first. They didn�t because the war had nothing to do with wither Saddam had WMD�s or not.