OpEdNews Op Eds

"What Happened"

By       Message winston     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 5 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


- Advertisement -

His former Press Secretary admitted that W lied to us all throughout his administration and now just a few days after this revelation the Washington Post has zero stories about this matter.

"What Happened" is big bro 43's propaganda for the war confused Congress to such an extent that Congress was convinced that Hussein had unmanned drones capable of attacking US. Do you doubt that during the run-up to the war that political leaders here as well as in England were being told that only their leaders knew the true story? The contemporaneous February 1, 2004 article "Drawing their own picture -- US, UK dismissed facts that didn't fit, critics charge" at
click here

"In the run-up to the war in Iraq, Washington and London worked in unison to present with terrifying specificity the intelligence underpinning their case for an invasion.

The Bush administration asserted that Iraq had unmanned drones capable of spreading biological weapons to US cities, and it displayed grainy black-and-white aerial photographs of new construction at the Al Qaim nuclear site as evidence that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon within a few years, if not months. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell highlighted some of those alarms in his dramatic Feb. 5 presentation to the UN Security Council.

In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair trotted out an intelligence dossier on the threat -- including an assertion that Iraq could unleash a chemical or biological weapon within 45 minutes of an order from Saddam Hussein."

So what Scotty is saying now was known then, but our media, which was obsessed with a stain on a blue dress, never gave this matter the legs that it required. The article continues "One year later, these claims have not just come under question, but in many cases now appear to have been false. On many of the most pivotal intelligence claims, David Kay, the CIA's former chief weapons inspector, said last week, "We were almost all wrong."

In the ensuing debate over the quality and use of the Iraq intelligence, many analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are saying that Kay oversimplified the problem, and that the British inquiry missed the point. In this view, the Bush and Blair governments overlooked a substantial body of countervailing intelligence as they made their case for war.

"Kay says we all got it wrong. Well, that's not the case," said Greg Thielmann, who before the war was director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. "The White House was not interested in information other than that which substantiated its case."

- Advertisement -

After 25 years in government service, Thielmann, 53, said he chose early retirement last fall, in part because of his frustration with the Bush administration. "They took every piece of information, and all the way up the line, it was made less qualified and more alarming. That is why the American people were so misled about the nature of the Iraqi threat."

We had well meaning and experienced Senators being sold a bill of goods as the article continues "The drones emerged as a key example. Kay told a Senate Armed Forces Committee last week that US weapons inspectors discovered that the drones were never capable of deployment for weapons of mass destruction.

That was disturbing news to Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who told Kay at Wednesday's hearing that he voted for the Iraq war, largely because he had been presented with then-classified information that stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq possessed the unmanned drones capable of threatening American cities with biological weapons."

Nelson stated "I was told only the one thing, that he had the capability," Nelson said. "I was obviously misled, because I was given incorrect information and I was not told there was a dispute about the veracity of that information."

The article makes the pertinent question:

- Advertisement -

"Why did [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld choose to go with one estimate, and choose to ignore the analysis of his own agency? These are the questions that have not yet been asked. Wouldn't a responsible policy maker have had some pause before he rushed to tell America that Iraq had these with weapons with such a degree of certainty?"

The liars went out of their way to get scoundrels to make up lies as the article continues "One senior figure in the Iraqi opposition community in London who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that claim came through the London-based Iraqi National Accord.

"Everyone knew the 45-minute claim was questionable. . . . All of the information that was coming out of Iraq [before the invasion] was questionable, often exaggerated, and a lot of it was misleading. But we were just passing this information along. It was the intelligence community's job to verify it," the opposition member said."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Bush planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.

Why did we all hate Palin?

Why is Obama protecting 43?

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

What happens to US credibility if Spain finds them guilty and we don't?

Bush, with criminal intent, planned the economic crisis for partisan GOP gain.