More US/British falsified propaganda? Saddam/Atta evidence is probably fake (big surprise).

lander · Dec 18, 2003

When in doubt, falsify evidence for support

.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/

Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
A document tying the Iraqi leader with the 9/11 terrorist is probably fake. PLUS, how terror financiers manage to stay in business WEB EXCLUSIVE
Newsweek
Updated: 5:53 p.m. ET Dec. 17, 2003Dec. 17 - A widely publicized Iraqi document that purports to show that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta visited Baghdad in the summer of 2001 is probably a fabrication that is contradicted by U.S. law-enforcement records showing Atta was staying at cheap motels and apartments in the United States when the trip presumably would have taken place, according to U.S. law enforcement officials and FBI documents.

MoDigitz · Dec 19, 2003

You forgot to mention this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But U.S. officials and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course that wouldn't fit into your agenda of blaming everything on the U.S. first and asking questions later.

PatPatriot · Dec 19, 2003

Got a new name for him..SLander.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MoDigitz:
You forgot to mention this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But _U.S. officials_ and a leading Iraqi document expert tell NEWSWEEK that the document is most likely a forgery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course that wouldn't fit into your agenda of blaming everything on the U.S. first and asking questions later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No kidding. Just like when the CIA said that Powell and Bush's "evidence" of Iraq obtaining Uranium from Niger was fabricated.

Much unlike people inside of the Bush administration - most people outside are not non-genocidal lunatics.

You're partial quote taken out of context is hardly a revelation.

Patriot,
Good one, but that's been used for over a year now Offshore. Well, at least now I know there's a lighter side to your ethnic cleansing ways.

xpanda · Dec 19, 2003

This thread, I think, is implying that Bush and Blair are outright fabricating evidence. Frankly, I find that notion offensive. I am sure a case can be made to support the idea that both would be more inclined to dismiss conflicting evidence, while simultaneously seeking out evidence which supports their position (see Blair's dossier in the months leading up to the war) but to imply that they outright knew it was false and presented it anyway is beyond reproach.

It is absolute human nature to 'dismiss' data which opposes you and hug that which supports you. This forum is a perfect example of that.

I will support the notion that information becomes 'twisted' and/or 'selectively chosen for public consumption' but I am loathe to support the notion that Bush and Blair, together, have the audacity to outright falsify documents.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

Xpanda,
Did you also find it "offensive" when Bush, Powell & Blair all cited the attempted uranium aquisitions from Niger by Iraq as "evidence" of their WMD program? No? What about after the CIA revealed that they advised Bush that the "evidence" should not be presented because it was likely fabricated? No? What about when that evidence was later determined to indeed be fabricated exactly as the CIA had warned Bush?

No? No. Of course not, because a US president can do no wrong in the eyes of the blind.

xpanda · Dec 19, 2003

First off, don't confuse me with someone who doesn't see that a President can do wrong ... blind, I most certainly am not. I am just about as anti-Bush as they get.

Now, the very fact alone that you know that the uranium evidence was indeed false, what does that tell you? Being advised that 'evidence' is 'likely' to have been fabricated is worlds away from having full knowledge of its fabrication. There are probably examples (I say probably because I have no evidence to support this claim) where a high-ranking government official has advised that a document is 'probably fake' when in fact it was not.

The fact that Blair and Bush continue to present 'evidence' to the public that they don't know with 100% certainty to be genuine is irresponsible, but it's also standard political procedure. But to make a statement that they unequivacably knew this document was fabricated is equally irresponsible. Tell me, what is to be gained by that? It's not like the truth doesn't come out in the end anyway ...

Lander, if you look closely enough, you will notice that 99.9% of politics actually resides in the grey area ...

lander · Dec 19, 2003

Perhaps Xpanda, but if something is wrong (presenting false information as evidence), it's not considered "less wrong" if everyone else does it, is it? I'd hope not, or we're comprimising our own system.

xpanda · Dec 19, 2003

You are missing the whole point of my posts ... I am simply saying I don't think Bush and Blair are guilty of forgery, or presenting information that they absolutely, positively, without question know to be false ... do they stretch the truth, or pass off half-truths, or keep truths from us?? Yes, of course. Find me a politician who doesn't. What has been suggested by this thread is that he is guilty of criminal activity with regards to this document ... bad judgement and too big an ego, perhaps, but not criminal activity.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

XPanda,
Offering unproven evidence (noneless against the advice of the CIA) as fact that creates mass propangda leading towards the support of a war that kills thousands of innoncents should damn well be criminal.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

Courtesy of our objectively thinking impaired friend Floyd -
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
3. Where is any link between Saddam and 9/11 ?

STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. SOME EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND LINKING ATTA TO IRAQI INTELLIGENCE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to bust another one of your myths, but I think you should read the article on the latest set of fabricated evidence.

xpanda · Dec 19, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lander:
XPanda,
Offering unproven evidence (noneless against the advice of the CIA) as fact that creates mass propangda leading towards the support of a war that kills thousands of innoncents should damn well be criminal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lander, stop being so damned naive.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

Ok, you're right, I must have imagined the following ...

- The evidence was used despite the CIA saying that it advised Bush to remove it from the speech.
- The initial "justification" for the war was that Bush said a country has an intrinsic right to "defend" itself via "pre-emptive strikes". He cited Iraq possessing WMD as the "evidence" used to support this.
- Suddenly, after the Niger uranium evidence was shown to be falsified and used against the CIA's recommendation Bush never mentioned "WMD" again. The new fight song became "Operation Iraqi Liberation", later renamed Operatation Iraqi Freedom at the suggestion of Bush's advisers.

Odd, how a country at war with Al Queda, still seeking justice on the mastermind of the deadliest day in American history would suddely "grow a heart", divert it's troops away from the enemy and help poor old Iraq out. Mind you, Liberia practically begged for help for months and was a send a few hundred troops to help.

Interesting leadership.

Ah, fuk, I'm just being naive again - I really should stop watching CNN, C-SPAN, MSNBC, BBC and reading countless other publications on a daily basis ... instead, I should ask a foreigner if my politics are naive.

Do you think the Germans were being naive in the 1940's?

xpanda · Dec 19, 2003

Lander, you daft ass, I'm not saying that Bush isn't pumping out propaganda ... but probably a full 90% of what you read/hear/see on the news is some form of half-truth or stretched-truth or just one side of the story.

I'm really happy for you that you can see right through all the propaganda ... most people can't do that. But the more you nitpick and exaggerate your own claims about this (and saying that Bush and Blair KNEW this document was fake is a claim) is just your own version of propaganda. Give us your opinion of things all you want, but if you're not going to be completely forthright in your verbage, then you are no better than they are.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

Lander, you daft ass, I'm not saying that Bush isn't pumping out propaganda ... but probably a full 90% of what you read/hear/see on the news is some form of half-truth or stretched-truth or just one side of the story.
Brilliant retort, but didn't we address this already? If 99 people commit homocide, does it become less of a crime when the 100th does it? No, of course not. Two wrongs do not make a right, and nor to 42 (as in other presidents). I've NEVER said Bush was the only one that used propaganda, but you've managed to quite be quite clever in spinning that false implication in twice - so just to clear it up I didn't say Bush was the first, only, etc .. to do anything.

I'm really happy for you that you can see right through all the propaganda ... most people can't do that. But the more you nitpick and exaggerate your own claims about this (and saying that Bush and Blair KNEW this document was fake is a claim)
The CIA is the greatest intelligence agency in the world. They informed Bush of their doubts on the evidence on the matter. Bush ignored the greatest intellegence agency and presented the information anyways. One of two things happened here - either Bush believed the CIA and used the falsified "evidence" anyway because it would raly great momentum in his unjust cause or he is a complete imbecile for not believing the CIA. If the first holds true then your statement is as genuine as the uranium evidence, and if the second holds true then it is crystal clear that Bush is unfit to lead if he can understand a simple conversation with CIA director George Tenet.

is just your own version of propaganda. Give us your opinion of things all you want, but if you're not going to be completely forthright in your verbage, then you are no better than they are.
I'm no better than they are? You're saying that me pointing out the lies used to generate this propaganda is akin to using propaganda that results in the thousands of deaths?

I hope you were simply unclear or over-exagerating in your statement because otherwise I'd have to assume that you were delusional.

xpanda · Dec 19, 2003

Never mind. You're totally not getting my point.

lander · Dec 19, 2003

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Never mind. You're totally not getting my point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I annotated every sentance and replied as throughly as possible. Is your frustration that I'm not getting your point, or rather that I'm agreeing with it?

World of difference.