Wash Post: Bush & Powell Used Faked Evidence Against Iraq

A shocker!!! Who would have thought that the Bush Admin would run a disinformation campaign on the war with Iraq?

I am waiting for someone to tell me either the Washington Post is not mainstream media or that the Washington Post is a liberal rag.

 

hmmm....seems like a pretty sloppy forging job if this turns out to be true. and who exactly fabricated them? it isn't clear from the story. all it says is that they were reviewed by US intelligence and sent by the Brits. if this is true then this is pretty bad and almost Nixon-esque because of the level of paranoia it would show. but it doesn't really make much sense because the bush admin had to know that they really didn't have to fake anything since saddam was more than likely to not follow thru on his part of the bargain and disarm.

also...i just went thru this thing one more time and it is very vague and does not place any blame on the bush admin or brits.

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents "were shared with us in good faith," he said.

 

This kind of stuff doesn't really do much to hurt the actual case against Iraq -- there's plenty of violations anyway -- but it doesn't help US credibility any. Unfortunately, that's something that we're in short supply of as-is.

 

This could be a distaster. It all depends on how quickly the fire spreads. If you put the fire out nobody remembers it. If you let the fire burn people will never forget it. The problem with a lie is that it spreads like wildfire. It burns throughout the city streets and then it singes the countryside.

 

This won't be a disaster, because as Major pointed out there are plenty of other violations that the inspectors (not US intelligence) have found. The case for war is still there, this just reflects badly upon the US and gives the conspiracy theorists something to harp on. I'm sure glynch feels like a giant among men right now.

Incidentally, I wonder why Blix failed to report that the inspectors have found Iraqi UAVs that have been modified to carry chem/bio weapons? UAVs that have no other use, and are proof positive of intent to use such weapons? It was in the written report, yet he failed to include such a damning find in the oral report. Such an omission just exemplifies his inherent opposition to enforcing the resolutions his bosses have passed. It is no wonder that the world sees this issue in such a confusing light, they are not getting the full story from Blix.

 

THe Washington Post?...

But seriously, tree...come on, man! This would have been a perfect opportunity to display a little objectivity. The government is asking us to support invading another nation in support of UN dictates when the UN doesn't agree...they are asking us to believe that the world is in danger, and the world doesn't agree..and they keep telling us to do all this without any proof, and the basis that they say so...And now, according to the most prestigous newspaper in the United States itself, the UN inspection team themselves is saying that the same people asking us to follow them to war on their say-so have, it would seem, been shown to be fabricating evidence...and the best you can say is we should still do what they want in the face of world opinion and UN definitions of self-defense on the basis that there is (I]other[/I] stuff they didn't lie about!?!? You honestly, seriously don't see that this compromises their ( questionable to begin with ) stance that 'we should all stop asking questions and go to war..trust us'... and,no this isn't the stuff of dreams for conspiracy 'theorists', the point about this isn't to make snide comments about glynch...this is real, this happened, the people who are asking us to compromise our civil liberties, asking the world to go ahead without proof based on their say so...these people who want us to GO TO WAR have, on top of not making a convincing evidenciary argument to suppport thier stance to begin with, have invented evidence to fool the inspectors into doing what they want them to do....This doesn't make you question their credibility, and the rightness of their cause even just a little!?!?

And then, to top it off, in the face of the revalation that our governmenit is LYING, you have the unbelievable gumption to back up your stance because you believe that the UN inspection team is 'conspiring' to stop the war by, get this, not being forthcoming?!!? Man, tree...come on...

 

Macbeth,

There is ample proof that Iraq maintains both a large stockpile of WMD and a large capacity to produce WMD. This "revelation" does *not* change that fact. And I am not talking about US intelligence, I am talking about information that is readily available to the public. To believe that Iraq is innocent is pure stupidity. No one at the UN actually believes this.

BTW, all we are asking the UN to do is to enforce the resolutions that it has passed. Why is that so f*ing difficult to do?

Incidentally, if the whole world believes that the sky is purple, does that make the sky purple? Our action here is the right thing to do in every conceivable way, and the fact that the rest of the world does not see it that way does not change that.

Here is your logic: Because evidence "A" is not shown to be true (notice not "shown to be not true"), all other evidence is irrelevant. Obviously, if we are to follow such false logic, then we must discount all other evidence - as you seem to want to do. C'mon, you're an educated guy - do you really want to stick to that logic?

I realize that you and people like you will grasp at any chance to declare this war baseless, illegal, or immoral, but the truth is that it is both legal, moral, and a logical step in maintaining not just our own but global security. None of your arguments to date have altered the fundamental issues underlying this conflict (although not for lack of trying), and none of them will. That is because the arguments for war are simply too internally consistent and well supported by history and facts, and the opposition arguments are in the end based solely on emotional responses (hate Bush, hate American power, simple ignorance).

This story does not alter the fundamental questions involved in the conflict, and will not alter its outcome either.

 

So has Saddam decided to fully comply with U.N. resolutions by turning over the questioned arsenal? Or.. no?