You
were lied to - are you going to do something about it?
US
gives up search for Iraq WMD - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169107.stm Intelligence
officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq.
"They say the
chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to
the country. Mr. Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles
of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion
nearly two years ago." The existence of WMD had been the stated reason
in Washington and London for going to war with Iraq.
For a long time I always wondered why the Bush 'administration' didn't
just plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to quell all the
questions. They certainly don't mind using dirty tricks, phone taps,
bribes, killing thousands and calling it 'collateral damage' -
But after I thought about it I realized that they didn't have to.
When Bush has the corporate controlled media aka the LIARS FOR
HIRE in his pocket that NEVER hold him accountable, why bother?
They have simply repeated white house lies for years and even now
refuse to call Bush on his lies. A large section of misinformed
Americans still believe that Saddam had these weapons, due to the
constant barrage of lies that the masses have been force fed for years
by the corporate media, and some are still
gullible enough to believe that Iraq had
something to do with 911.
Well if you're reading this, and still think that way - Hit yourself in
the head repeatedly until you get it - YOU WERE LIED TO.
Fox, CNN, MSNBC - All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. For
MONTHS there was day to day coverage of 'what could their weapons do'
and 'how far can they strike'... 'are they a threat to the US' - all
the messages the Bush administration WANTED you to hear. Did they stop
to actually investigate it? No. All they were doing was repeating a
lie, and doing so in a manner that made MILLIONS of Americans feel
threatened by "WMD" - the imminent "mushroom cloud" that was going to
appear over Your City, USA.
Where is the credibility? How did internet bloggers and writers know
what corporate media didn't? Maybe it's their spending and research
budgets. (Insert Laugh) Billions in corporate dollars versus pocket change and common
sense. How much sense does that make?
NOT FUNNY BUSH
I think we all remember this - At a black-tie dinner for journalists,
Mr Bush narrated a slide show poking fun at himself and other members
of his administration. One pictured Mr Bush looking under a piece of
furniture in the Oval Office, at which the president remarked: "Those
weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere." After
another one, showing him scouring the corner of a room, Mr Bush said:
"No, no weapons over there," he said. And as a third picture,
this time showing him leaning over, appeared on the screen the
president was heard to say: "Maybe under here?"
Well I'm not Laughing. Families of those serving in Iraq aren't
laughing. The thousands of dead civilians certainly aren't laughing.
Ignoring the fact that the war is still raging well past a year after
it was declared "mission accomplished", there ARE no WMDs, there is no
evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, and the torture
scandal (and other widespread abuse) has made the United States the
most despised nation on Earth. How do we pay back the world? We elect
(thanks Diebold) Bush for a second term. Smooth.
Let's do a little
flash back.
Saddam Hussein could not account for every single shell, bullet et al
used during the 10 years of the Iran-Iraq war. He never thought he'd
have to account for them - after all, nearly all of the ones he
supposedly had were supplied to him by his good ally America.
People saw Iraq's failure to come up with paperwork proving the
destruction of its arsenal as evidence of deception in the run-up
to the war.... "NO PAPERWORK" - "How can we believe that!?! You can't
account for simple stash of supposed weapons"?
Yet at that SAME TIME, AMERICA couldn't account for ONE TRILLION in
military technology, including: 32 tanks, 56 planes and 36 Javelin
missile command launch-units. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0305/S00158.htm
Hypocrisy Much?
In the past 35 years all films and most other forms of popular
entertainment have emphasized brute force and violence as the means by
which all issues are settled. People that talk are depicted as silly,
ineffectual or worse, as p*ssies. The methods of the
Bush regime typifies the present day popular lust for bloody
ham-fisted problem solving a la Rambo... Bush
claims that his war on Iraq has made Americans safer. His primary
rationale is that by removing from power a foreign dictator who was
supposedly bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Americans are
safer as a result. That's good and all. Saddam is now LONG GONE, there were no WMD's and ties to 911 are non-existent. Bring
our troops home.
Bush's reasoning is both false and fallacious and he still maintains
the delusion that we're the ones who are morally right.
Saddam had changed directions (not that he was a nice guy). It appears
now that not only had he not
added to the stockpiles of WMDs that he had acquired from the United
States, he obviously had even destroyed pr removed the stockpiles they
had delivered to him. HE WASN'T EVEN TECHNICALLY IN BREACH OF
RESOLUTION 1441 - and all of it's WMD references.
What's more important is that the presidents war in Iraq has
killed or maimed an untold number of Iraqis, both military and heavily
civilian, most of whom presumably had relatives and friends who now
have more reason to hate the
United States. You can't win
hearts and minds with m-14's and cluster bombs.
The exact number of dead and maimed is unknown because of the Pentagons
official policy of not counting the
bodies, but they certainly have to number in the tens if not
hundreds of thousands. (As U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks put it, "We don't do
body counts.") Consider that civilian deaths have been estimated at a
minimum of 15,000; certainly the military dead have to be equal to and,
more likely, two or three times that number. Add in the maimed, such as
the Iraqi boy who lost both of his arms (and both his parents) and that
brings the number of innocent Iraqi people who have been killed or
injured to a conservative estimate of 20,000 to 40,000 people, some 10
or 20 times the number of (innocent) people killed at the World Trade
Center (which they had nothing to do with). And that's collateral
damage?
In case you missed
reading this : This war on terrorism is bogus
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons
why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has
focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British
motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers
were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a
natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then,
because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to
retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq
as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may
be a great deal murkier. - MUST READ
Will we ever hear an apology from Mr. Bush
for being wrong about the WMD? I do not think so.
Will
the mass media outlets that provided the lies to millions ever issue an
apology for their endless coverage? I do not think so.
Will the world forget the acts of the US, the corruption and abuse that
derived from the "liberation" of Iraq? I do not think so
