Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

Search

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
496
Tokens
LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,441
Tokens
How about "we're winning the war in Iraq?"

Appalling, I'm ashamed to be an American
 
Last edited:

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
271
Tokens
How about the Admin mantra of:

"The revenues from oil production will pay for the reconstruction".

I guess in retrospect, that's not a lie, just piss-poor forecasting and planning.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
1,925
Tokens
And yet, he may very well be elected again.
I think if the Republicans ran the anti-christ
he would still get most of their votes.
And then again, maybe they are.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
496
Tokens
Bush better win. Nobody can clean up the mess he has made. I just enjoy watching him squirm as all this crap is going down. It looks good on him.
 
Last edited:

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
I would like to see more credible sources than the ones posted in these "Facts". Alternet? The New Republic? There are dozens of these types of sources in favor of the opposite point of view. Perhaps you could come up with a credible source such as CBS or something like that. :)

The truth is that there are enough people who don't believe these Moore-ian statements. So much so that George Bush will win in November.
 
Last edited:

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
496
Tokens
Quantum show proof otherwise. You can't do it. You are just voting for Bush blindly because that is the party you vote for. You'd vote in Hitler or Saddam as long as he was heading up your party, you could careless about his platform. What I posted is undisputable. Prove me wrong. This is the part where we don't hear back from Quantum or if we do it's so far off topic it's humourous.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
Benassflick said:
Quantum show proof otherwise. You can't do it. You are just voting for Bush blindly because that is the party you vote for. You'd vote in Hitler or Saddam as long as he was heading up your party, you could careless about his platform. What I posted is undisputable. Prove me wrong. This is the part where we don't hear back from Quantum or if we do it's so far off topic it's humourous.
I'm not voting for Bush nor am I a Republican so don't speak for me. You make a good point though. I should make a point for the other side. I do believe I have been challenged.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
You quote some tabloid web site. I will quote the State Department. Here's the link to the State Department's assessment of nuclear and biological weapons. Here are some quotes in the article.

A source should stand on its own. When someone like benassflick has to make statements "you can't find any proof against these points" or "what I post is undisputable" it is obvious he is trying to bolster an already weak point. I don't need to say these points are undisputable or that you can't find proof against them.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/22717.htm

Only one agency in six that was involved in determining whether there was a reconstitution of nuclear weapons dissented against the others. The reason for dissent was not that it wasn't present, but that it wasn't present to the degree that the other 5 agencies said it was.

------------
"Now, we spoke -- as we went through this, we also spoke about the alternative views about that issues, about the aluminum tubes and other alternative views with regards to the uranium. But even in the INR dissent, the Assistant Secretary of State for INR believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons, and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapon-related capabilities.
So even in the dissent by the one agency of the six agencies that did not have a clear and convincing understanding of a nuclear weapons program still was able to state that they believe that there was a reconstitution effort, just not as robust as what the other agencies had concluded. "
------------

Regarding the uranium sought by Saddam from a country in Africa, the source is the British government. In addition to nuclear interest, it was known that Iraq possessed the materials to make several other weapons of mass destruction including nerve gas, saran and other chemical weapons.

------------
"Those assertions were very straightforward in which they said, we know that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulism toxin; we know that Saddam Hussein had materials to produce as much as 500 tons of saran, mustard, VX nerve agents; we know that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents; we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs; we know that in the 1990s Saddam Hussein had advanced nuclear weapons program and had a design for a nuclear weapon, was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb; and we know that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
So there were a whole litany of "we knows." And as we read the speech and reviewed the drafts, we believed that it would be much more credible for those that were hearing the speech and making a decision based on the speech, and being educated by the speech, if they understood how we knew these things. So we asked the speechwriters to go back and source each of these assertions that we made. That's why we go back, and you can look at the final text of the speech in which we cite specific sources, where possible that we can make public. Several of them were the U.N., IAEA; some we had to say, U.S. intelligence indicates; one we said, from three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. Then on the issue of uranium in Africa, we said, "the British government has learned." "
------------
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
496
Tokens
I read what what you posted Quantum. It prooves nothing my posts still stand untarnished as usual. In the 1990's you quote. You do realize you attacked in the year 2000. You do realize that their main Iraqi defector that they relied on hadn't been in Iraq in over 30 fukkin years. Get some real proof or don't waste my time.

Yes they did have chemical weapons and used chemical weapons back in the 90's when Rumsfield was shacking Saddams hand and the U.S. fully suported Iraq and turned a blind eye to the chemical weapons use. Get an education or get out of this forum
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
I'm afraid you didn't read the whole article. Your try of dismissing my article by incorrectly quoting the points made in the article is weak. They are talking about late 90's. We invaded Iraq a few years later. Not hardly ancient history at the time.

The post you quote from is by Christopher Scheer of alternet.com. What are his credentials? How credible are his points? How reliable are his sources? For most of his points he doesn't even quote his sources. Why are you so easily ready to take this man's opinion if you don't even know how reliable he is? I'll quote you "get some real proof or don't waste my time."

I believe it is you who is in need of an education. Try looking at your misspellings. They are laughable. You don't come off as being educated when you can't even spell common words.

It is apparent you are trying to dismiss my points without countering the points I bring up. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed.
 
Last edited:

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
496
Tokens
Now your just plain off the wall Quantum. You ask how credible the guy is when the answer is blatantly obvious. He said there were no WMD's or chemical weapons in Iraq at the time of the American invasion and he was 100% RIGHT.
Do I need to remind you what Bush and Powell and chaney and Rumsfield said on this matter.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
300
Tokens
Seems funny that the right wingers want Dan Rathers job for using misinformation as fact, while they keep supporting this administrations half truths and phony intelligence. Shouldn't the Bush administration be held to the same or higher level than CBS?
 

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
Quantum: with all due respect, quoting from the State Department, who are accused of these lies in the first place, is like quoting Ted Bundy to prove his innocence.

My favourite pile of crap laid out by this administration: "They'll greet us with flowers."

I had no idea that flowers and bullets were synonymous.
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,373
Tokens
xpanda said:
Quantum: with all due respect, quoting from the State Department, who are accused of these lies in the first place, is like quoting Ted Bundy to prove his innocence.

My favourite pile of crap laid out by this administration: "They'll greet us with flowers."

I had no idea that flowers and bullets were synonymous.
First of all Panda, thanks for bringing some sense to this this topic. I too am appalled by our governments lies. However, that doesn't mean everything they say are lies. Some of their statements can be corroborated by other governments and even independent agencies. People who write articles like the one posted here only bring up one point of view against the government while ignoring the dozen or so that agree with the government.

My whole point in this thread is that just because we see something on a web site doesn't mean it's true. The author could just be putting his own words in as "Facts" or perhaps has had wrong information given to him (reference Dan Blather). There are very few links in the original article. I prefer to scrutinize people who know more about the subject than a web journalist. Sure, there are bound to be untruths in the State Dept. statements. It's up to intelligent people to find out what is true and what is false.
 

Banned
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
496
Tokens
I post several truths to help you guys out. Now you are well aware that they are truths because you are unable to find proof otherwise. I'm not on here posting a bunch of lies like the other common idiots on here.
 
Last edited:

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
3,447
Tokens
Benassflick said:
I post several truths to help you guys out. Now you are well aware that they are truths because you are unable to find proof otherwise. I'm not on here posting a bunch of lies like the other common idiots on here.
you are definitely not "common" idiot.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,908
Messages
13,575,089
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com