Question:
Why do some libs see this as propaganda?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Why do some libs see this as propaganda?
Twenty answers:
2006-10-28 23:09:42 UTC
What should be of concern to everybody, both sides is that this series of lies about WMD was believed and was used as a reason to attack another country. This has cost the US heavily in International prestige, in lives, in the economy and in the perception that the USA is dishonest by most of the world.
2006-10-28 23:43:42 UTC
I think those select sound-bytes prove that politicians on both sides of the aisle were successfully duped by cherry-picked intelligence that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States. Further, they were suckered, or bullied, into authorizing the president to declare war, not for the war itself.



Don't understand the difference? It's like agreeing to give someone a gun if they promise not to kill anyone unless it's absolutely necessary, then they shoot the next person they see without real cause.



And it's clear there was no real cause for the war in Iraq, based on the number of WMDs found in Iraq since the invasion: zero. Thus it was president Bush and his administration that ultimately decided to invade Iraq -- to shoot that gun -- for no legitimate reason.



Moreover, the Republicans continue to stall phase 2 of a study of pre-war intelligence that could shed some light on who knew what when. Why is that?



I'd pose this question to you and everyone else who still supports the war in Iraq: Why? There was no imminent threat. There was no tie between Saddam and al Qaeda and 9/11. Nearly 3,000 U.S. troops have died, not to mention the thousands of injured soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi citizens. And there is no end in sight.
2006-10-28 23:26:52 UTC
Spider Marks (RESEARCH HIM) was in the DOD and heading the WMD search before the war. He repeatdly told the Bush White HOuse to back off of the WMD because there was no ironclad evidence. Yet Bush included in his speeches to Congress and America that iraq "for a fact had WMD" . he misled america and utterly ignored the facts so he manipulate congress for authorization. JEEZ don't you get.



This is from the book State of Denial:



He was not the first American WMD-hunter to suspect that there might not be anything there. The general tasked with finding the hidden weapons programme had reached the same conclusion months before the war even started.



Back in September 2002, six months before the war, Major General James “Spider” Marks was given the assignment of a lifetime: top intelligence officer for the US-led forces planning to invade Iraq. It was his job to find the WMD as the troops went in.



Cheney had recently given a speech that Marks believed must have been cleared by US intelligence. “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” Cheney had said. “There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”



The rhetoric was very strong, and Marks took it as an article of faith that the intelligence behind it was equally strong: Saddam had WMD.



Marks thought he and the rest of the ground force generals would be sitting ducks when they deployed to Kuwait ahead of the invasion. What better target for Saddam to hit with a preemptive chemical or biological attack? Odds were he would not be coming home. Marks kept his fatalistic conclusions from his wife and daughters, but he put his affairs in order.



Before going to Kuwait, Marks arranged to meet the top experts on Iraq and WMD at the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA). He thought of these experts as “the smart guys”. There were the overhead satellite smart guys, the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons smart guys, the Middle East regional smart guys, and the overall intelligence collection systems smart guys.



What do we really know about Saddam’s WMD? he asked them. They presented him with their highly classified Weapons of Mass Destruction Master Site List (WMDMSL): the 946 locations where intelligence indicated there were production plants or storage facilities for chemical, biological or nuclear-related material.



Marks had some questions. What would the invading forces do with each WMD site? Destroy it? Test it? Guard it? Render it useless? Who will be doing that? “Well, we don’t have their names,” one of the guys answered.



“Why not?” Marks asked. “What units are doing that?” “Oh, we’ve got units who do that.”



“Have you notified them?”



“Of course not.”



“Well, then — how’s this all going to come together?” Marks asked. “I hate to be a jerk here, but I’m the guy who’s going to be — I and about 400 to 500 guys — are going to be holding the bag on this thing. Can you throw me a bone?” Marks left the meeting very disturbed. He dug into the underlying evidence that suggested each of the 946 sites had WMD. It was thin. There were old satellite images, five years or more in some cases, and some signals intelligence — but nothing conclusive. The WMD list was on a computer network, but much of the information was of doubtful value. In fact, he realised, he couldn’t say with confidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction or stockpiles at a single site.



The top generals and planners for the invasion weren’t very focused on WMD, however.



Marks told Lieutenant-General David McKiernan, the commander of US ground forces: “Sir, I can’t confirm what’s inside any of these sites.”



He amplified his concern about a suspected chemical production plant.



“Got it,” McKiernan replied. “Let’s move on.”



Marks selected as his deputy Colonel Steve Rotkoff, a bookish, irreverent New Yorker who summarised his thoughts and emotions with three-line haiku. One of his early observations:



Rumsfeld is a dick

Won’t flow the forces we need

We will be too light.



Like nearly everyone else planning the war in Kuwait, Rotkoff spent days at a time wearing his charcoal-lined chemical weapons jumpsuit because of the WMD threat. He was scared half to death each time he took it off. Monday was the one day he could find 15 minutes in his schedule to shower. Every time he did so he was sure that would be when Saddam would attack with chemical or biological weapons.



This is not a drill . . .

Mask + chem suit on quickly

Try not to panic



Back home, Bush and others in the administration were escalating the WMD rhetoric. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on December 5: “The president of the United States and the secretary of defence would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it.”



Fleischer announced again on January 9: “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”



Colin Powell, the secretary of state, went before the United Nations on February 5, 2003, to make the WMD intelligence case for war. And in his weekly radio address on February 8, Bush said: “We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorised Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”



But Marks told Lieutenant-General Jeff Kimmons, senior intelligence officer to General Tommy Franks, the war commander, that the intelligence on WMD just wasn’t good enough.



“This is unsat, unsat, unsat,” Marks told Kimmons. “Jeff, you need to move this forward, buddy . . . this is not working.”



He also told Franks’s deputy, Lieutenant-General John Abizaid, about his concerns. Was there anything else he could have done from the Kuwaiti desert, he asked himself, to raise hell up the chain of command until he was heard? For that matter, he wondered, shouldn’t Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, or Franks — or even Bush — have reached down the chain a link or two, found the general handling WMD intelligence for the invading forces and asked him what he thought? When the war began on March 19, the taskforce entering Iraq to look for WMD had to scale back its activities because it had too few people or vehicles. Having planned for four or five WMD-hunting units, it had only two.



“Fri Apr 11,” Marks wrote in his war diary 23 days later. “No WMD.”



“Sunday 11 May D+53 . . . No WMD,” he wrote again.



Marks was now nearly as sure there was nothing to find as he had previously been positive that the weapons were there.



Rotkoff summed up the situation:



Where is WMD?

What a kick if he has none

Sorry about that



Yet President Bush declared in an interview with a Polish television reporter on May 29: “We found the weapons of mass destruction . . . We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two.”



Bush made similar remarks in France. The only problem was that he was wrong: the weapons hadn’t been found.



Unknown to the president, the DIA had dispatched a team to Iraq to examine the two mobile labs. The day before Bush’s statement the team had sent back a three-page field report saying they were not for biological weapons.



A day after Bush’s remarks, the administration announced the creation of the 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group to take over the hunt for WMD. Responsibility for it was transferred from the military to the CIA.









ON the afternoon of Thursday June 5, David Kay was at CIA headquarters. Kay, 63, a short, intense, outspoken Texan with a PhD in political science, had been the chief United Nations nuclear weapons inspector inside Iraq after the 1991 Gulf war and had led the successful effort to uncover Saddam’s secret nuclear programme, which had been six to 18 months away from building a bomb. It had been one of the big intelligence shocks of the 1990s.



Now Kay had just returned from Iraq, where he had spent a month for NBC News following Spider Marks’s WMD-hunting taskforce.



“What do you think?” George Tenet asked. “Why aren’t they finding anything?” “These guys probably couldn’t find it if it was in front of them,” Kay said bluntly. “They’re not organised, equipped or led to do it.”



“Okay. If you were king, what would you do?” “You have to treat this like an intelligence operation. You go after people.”



Find the generals, the scientists who made the weapons, those who worked at the production facilities, the guards who provided security, the truck drivers who transported the weapons.



“Yeah, that makes sense,” Tenet said. “F****** military can never get anything organised . . . The president’s unhappy with what’s happening.”





Left unmentioned was the fact that most of the intelligence and conclusions about the “slam dunk” case for the existence of WMD — as Tenet had put it to the president in December 2002, using a basketball analogy — had come from or through the CIA.



Kay agreed to take over the WMD hunt. He was personally convinced that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. He was in for a surprise, however.



He expected some new treasure trove as he spent 15 to 18-hour days reading and sitting through CIA and defence department briefings. He was shocked at what was not there.



“It was nothing new,” he recalled. Anything with a strong or reasonable factual basis came from before 1998, when the UN inspectors had left. “Everything after that either came from a defector or came through a foreign intelligence service in an opaque sort of way.”



For example, Kay found that all the prewar intelligence about the mobile biological weapons labs had come from a single source, an Iraqi defector used by German intelligence who was codenamed Curveball.



Powell had told the UN and the world there were four sources but in truth three of the sources only provided information about Curveball’s career or about an alleged mobile lab facility of some kind. “They had no knowledge of the biological programme,” Kay said.



Kay was aghast to realise that the CIA had never even independently interviewed Curveball but relied instead on the Germans’ reports of 112 interrogations they conducted. Worse still, it appeared that the Germans had warned that Curveball was an alcoholic, although this had been downplayed in the US files.



Kay said later, “The more you look at it, the less is there. It was an eye-opening experience.”
?
2006-10-28 23:18:06 UTC
LOL!! Watching them answer this is like Not Me arguing theology.
yupchagee
2006-10-29 00:00:59 UTC
Their definition of propaganda is anything that challanges their worldview.
2006-10-28 23:14:38 UTC
Because it shoes the truth about who they are, a bunch of people who will tell you anything that they think you want to hear, or anything that is popular at the time, in order for them to get elected. At least Bush is consistant, we know where he stands. These people hide their true thoughts and beleifs, which is socialism

and to boltthro: The administration didnot construct the intelligence. It was the CIA and Bush saw all the same intel as these fools did. Try reading the 911 commision report
Plato
2006-10-28 23:13:39 UTC
I'm not clear on your point ... are you saying that liberals are denying that the politicians quoted did not say what is attributed in the quotes? If so, this is nonsense.



Or, are you saying that liberals think the politicians being quoted are spouting propaganda? If so, that may very well be.



I'm just saying ... some of the quotes spoke of weapons of mass destruction, which I don't think were ever found. That may be what they are referring to as propaganda.



Just a thought .... I'm just sayin' ....
scarlettt_ohara
2006-10-28 23:10:48 UTC
Because they don't like being faced with the truth,
2006-10-28 23:10:38 UTC
This is the live video version.



http://www.gop.com/DemFacts/ThenNow.aspx
2006-10-28 23:09:04 UTC
EVERYTHING IN FAHRENHEIT 9-11 WAS TRUE...



all the quotes were real... all the stats were real... you can go back and look at the citations...



but (THIS IS THE KEY)... were they presented in the manner they were intended?



probably not... it's still propaganda...



and your site is the same... just on the other side...



just because you have a real quote... or facts... it doesn't mean it's not propaganda... did you just fall off the turnip truck or something?



EDIT: look... I'm just going to take the first quote... and crush it... just to show you how your little cite works...



at the top it says "quotes and facts on Iraq"



the FIRST quote is HILLARY talking about terror like two days after 9-11... no mention of IRAQ AT ALL?

do you remember that time AT ALL?



NOT ONE PERSON WAS TALKING ABOUT IRAQ IN THE LEAST AT ALL...



in fact, in report after report, and even Bush said, Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11... which is CLEARLY what she was referring to that close to 9-11...



so how is THIS NOT BEING TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT...



I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER PLEASE... just on this first quote that's all... PLEASE...



why should I even bother to look at one more item on the page when the first item is laughable in EVERY WAY?



EDIT2: I'm getting tired of explaining how these quotes are bias... but let's look at the Clinton one you mention...



FIRST OFF... the entire premise of your website is that Democrats said one thing then and another now... the Clinton quote was pre-9-11 and I think this is a vastly different world that it was then... so that must be taken into account when viewing quotes from pre-9-11...



in other words... he probably wouldn't have called Saddam the biggest threat after Osama killed 3,000 on U.S. soil...



but, beyond that... he did bomb Iraq in 1998 quite heavily for a small period there if you remember... and no one has any facts what so ever that they produced any WMD after that attack... so one could consider that attack successful, since it stopped the WMD production...



EDIT 3... first off... Iraqis said it was an aspirin factory... you guys love to believe them...and they would never lie... right?



second... there was MUCH more than one bomb dropped and no bombs have gone off course ever during this Iraqi campain right? is that all you can say is asprin factory out of all the bombing we did do? there was tons of bombing and maybe one bomb did go off course... what about the hundreds that found their target?
Brooks B
2006-10-28 23:36:47 UTC
I see it as evidence that most politicians are crooked and will say anything if it seems popular at the time.



"Clinton bombed an asprin factory, how did that get rid of the WMD's?"

I think you're confusing Clinton's attempt to kill Osama bin Laden with his bombing of Iraq. I do remember when all you Republicans cried "wag the dog" when Clinton tried to do anything about Iraq -- then as soon as Bush wanted to bomb them it was a great and noble mission. Hypocrite...
?
2006-10-28 23:15:05 UTC
#1. Each quote is taken out of context.



#2. Many of the "facts" have changed since those quotes were

made.



#3. You don't REALLY want to know what "us guys" are thinking.



edit: #4. Those are quotes, not "facts".



#5. When grouped together like that, it is obvious that someone is trying to say more than any individual or any individual quote--I would have to know who grouped them, and for what purpose.



#6. It's the usage that determines the "name" propaganda.



edit again: thanks, g, you said what I was trying to say, but much, much better!!!!!



edit again and again: to "g" once more: So, scorebored had to explain that Clinton bombed an aspirin factory---no sense of humor in that guy, eh?
Norton N
2006-10-28 23:58:47 UTC
One notices that You quoted no sources besides freedomagenda



Who knew?
?
2006-10-28 23:14:37 UTC
NO!no but please remember how this administration construed all the Intel to there liking. and if the dems objected they would be labeled,helping the enemy. and did the congress see the same Intel as the administration saw? and why are the re-pugs running away from that war? what do they have to fear? to average joe,wasnt it cheney that said it was iraq that caused 9/11?
AMERICA #1
2006-10-28 23:09:40 UTC
Because they are delusioned and have a mental disorder.



The liberal's job is to confuse the obvious and sanitize the profane.



A prime example is the individual above, G .
Cinner
2006-10-28 23:15:29 UTC
Libs will close their eyes and ears to the factual information you have provided. I'll be surprised if any of them even try to respond other than to call you names. Thanks for the verification of what I've always known....they are hypocrites!
2006-10-28 23:18:30 UTC
lucky2balive, thanks for the clip. I haven't laughed that hard in a long time. It's crazy how quickly people forget themselves. I was beginning to believe only Keith Olbermann had a collection of anyone saying one thing and then saying another. Thanks!!!
2006-10-28 23:07:27 UTC
there is no way to reply to proof with any other logic except with accusations of hate mongering and blaming a party not affiliated with the question.
2006-10-28 23:52:02 UTC
So what is your point.???

That people were panicked post 911?

Or that we should continue our "war of liberation"?



A whole lot of other people believed the faulty intel the Bush administration obtained from dubious sources



excerpts from wikipedia article



"Chalabi is a controversial figure for many reasons. In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, under his guidance the INC provided a major portion of the information on which U.S. Intelligence based its condemnation of Saddam Hussein, including reports of weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Much of this information has turned out to be false. That, combined with the fact that Chalabi subsequently gloated about the impact that their falsifications had in an interview with the British Sunday Telegraph, led to a falling out between him and the United States."



"Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi,1 (Arabic: ???? ??????) (born October 30, 1944) was interim oil minister in Iraq[1] in April-May 2005 and December-January 2006 and deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006. Chalabi failed to win a single seat in parliament in the December 2005 elections, and when the new Iraqi cabinet was announced in May 2006, he was not awarded a post. Once dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American Neoconservatives, he has fallen out of favor and is currently under investigation by several U.S. government sources. He is also wanted for massive bank fraud in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."



"A secret document written in 2002 by the British Overseas and Defence Secretariat reportedly described Chalabi as "a convicted fraudster popular on Capitol Hill". [5]"



"Additionally, Chalabi and other members of the INC have been being investigated for fraud involving the exchange of Iraqi currency, grand theft of both national and private assets, and many other criminal charges in Iraq. On May 19, 2004 the U.S. government discontinued their regular payments to Chalabi for information he provided. Then on May 20, Iraqi police supported by U.S. soldiers raided his offices and residence, taking documents and computers, presumably to be used as evidence"



"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi





Incapable of reason.



Who is incabable of reason?



The people who are wise to government lies?



Or the "stay the course" in spite of the lies that got us into Iraq no matter how much it costs or how many Americans servicemembers get killed people?



Conservatives just love criminals ...don't they.

Something about thesuit and tie and the flags and the bunting and the thunderous background music.



Stay the course...truth be damned.



right?



After DUBYA ...If the U.S. Government said 1+1=2 would enter it into calculator just to double check.



Chalabi..."The George Washington of Iraq"!!

it would be LOL if it weren't tragic.



AND more

BBC LINK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2291649.stm



quote from Salon link

It was Chalabi who provided crucial intelligence on Iraqi weaponry to justify the invasion, almost all of which turned out to be false, and laid out a rosy scenario about the country's readiness for an American strike against Saddam that led the nation's leaders to predict -- and apparently even believe -- that they would be greeted as liberators. Chalabi also promised his neoconservative patrons that as leader of Iraq he would make peace with Israel, an issue of vital importance to them. A year ago, Chalabi was riding high, after Saddam Hussein fell with even less trouble than expected.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/05/04/chalabi/index.html



MSNBC work for you?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040831/



how about another from telegraph UK

excerpt from link

"An Iraqi leader accused of feeding faulty pre-war intelligence to Washington said yesterday his information about Saddam Hussein's weapons, even if discredited, had achieved the aim of persuading America to topple the dictator.



Ahmad Chalabi and his London-based exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, for years provided a conduit for Iraqi defectors who were debriefed by US intelligence agents. But many American officials now blame Mr Chalabi for providing intelligence that turned out to be false or wild exaggerations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.





Ahmad Chalabi: 'we've been entirely successful'

Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad.



"As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F02%2F19%2Fwirq19.xml



Is that enough?

Should I find some more?

CHALABI IS A CRIMINAL AND A LIAR!

AND UPON HIS WORD WE BASED THE DOOMED TO FAILURE INVASION OF IRAQ.



Should I keep looking?
linus_van_pelt68
2006-10-28 23:08:37 UTC
....


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...