1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The White House knew claims about Iraq were false long before the president used them

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by Spie, 9 Jul 2003.

  1. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,055

  2. paul_h_amiga

    Gangster

    Joined: 14 Feb 2003

    Posts: 169

    Location: A place where the laws of

    this made me laugh, although this could be considered anti-american for which I aplgise in advance to any americans reading this.

    But back to the suject, really this doesn't surprise me one bit. They were going to go to war anyway, so they had to come up with anything in order to get the public behind it. Even if it turned out not to be true. They got what they wanted, a war in Iraq. They more than likely do not care whether or not they were right to do so.
     
  3. afraser2k

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,513

    Location: Glasgow

    So the BBC has no evidence other than a comment from a CIA official? How do we know that official doesn't have his/her own agenda as we're reminded so often about Iraqi sources? We can only wait and see if anything is found before making judgement.
     
  4. Christo

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 28 Oct 2002

    Posts: 9,453

    Location: Returning some videotapes

    The media will keep on digging and find deception but the powers that be will smother it as much as possible. Its very interesting to see the BBC attacking the government, I wonder if this has happened before? Also is it clever for them to bite the hand that feeds them? Although I beleive they are oing the right thing.
     
  5. VaderDSL

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 15,251

    Location: Manchester

    Its like a real life 24 (tv program) saga.

    :( Hard to make judgements now adays due to so many lies, falseties, (word?) deception by official sources :(
     
  6. paul_h_amiga

    Gangster

    Joined: 14 Feb 2003

    Posts: 169

    Location: A place where the laws of

    biteing the hand that feeds it: when it's justifed like the with the BBC, it shows to me that they will not back down at the government over key issues and remain impartial despite being funded by them. Makes a change doesn't it?
     
  7. Gordy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 1 May 2003

    Posts: 388

    Part of the point of the war is that iraq was hiding stuff , something that has been proved has it not?

    I watch an interesting program last night that was askin why was blair so confident even now that they will find wmd? I was expecting the politicions to be back peddling if they couldnt find anything.

    I doubt anything will be found till sadam is found as people still believe he will come back :)

    If I was in his position at the time before the war I would have got all evidence out of the country and try to pressure the us into leaving and come back into power claiming the us was wrong. Exactly what could happen :(
     
  8. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Blair has not said he is confident they will find WMD. Yesterday he said he is sure they will find evidence of WMD programmes.. which might sound like semantics or splitting hairs, but it's a hell of a difference finding the theoretical capability to produce weapons, if Iraq had so chosen, than finding the actual weapons themselves, ready to be used at 45 minutes' notice!

    Remember the threat from Iraq was so urgent and pressing that we had to take pre-emptive action.. lol :rolleyes:

    In a nutshell, we didn't go to war on the intelligence; we decided we were going to war (to go along with Bush) then spent the rest of the time making the intelligence fit the policy, concocting 'dossiers' and spinning to the public and MPs, to convince us of the case for war. But the policy was decided on long ago.
     
  9. IndyModeOCHW

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,346

    Location: The Zoo, Michigan, USA

    "The White House knew claims about Iraq were false long before the president used them "

    Is this really a surprise to anyone?

    It was funny, I was flipping thru the tv stations this morning and I saw lots of politicians ripping into Tony (what's it called - the House of Commons or something? It was early and I wasn't paying complete attention...) and seeing that always blows my mind. Because over here no one would ever dare to talk to the president like that. No congressman or journalist would ever so hostilely question and confront Bush.

    And I think it is that attitude precisely that hurts America so much, that blind faith people seem to put in the office of the president, the eternal utmost respect they always show him 24/7 - wether he deserves it or not. Why shouldn't we question him? I mean he works for us, we are supposed to be the ones who choose to put him in office. Why shouldn't we question his moves and motives?

    *sighs with frustration at the US media and government*
     
  10. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    That's because they equate patriotism with being loyal to the President, rather than to the country.. which isn't necessarily the same thing.

    (sorry for going off topic ;) )
     
  11. drumm23

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 403

    Location: Geneva

    Well personally I'm still delighted they went in, WMD's or not. The world is a better place without Saddam's regime and, if it took a bit of "sexing up" to convince the usual delusional & selfish pacifists - then I couldn't give a toss. And nor could most of the Iraqis.
    I am impressed by Tony's willingness to stick with something he believed in despite the questionable political ramifications and I am pleased it was GWB and not Gore in the White House when it came to the crunch. It is easy to do nothing.

    JD.
     
  12. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,055

    I'm far from a usual delusional & selfish pacifist and I object very strongly to the way Blair misled us into War on Iraq. Build hospitals, reduce taxation and make our streets safer instead.
     
  13. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: 3 May 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    I think you will find that it's harder to do nothing, to let the Iraqi people overthrow their own leader.

    It's easy to press a button and kill God know how many civillians..
     
  14. drumm23

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 403

    Location: Geneva

    Well Saddam certainly had the knack of it..... not any more though...
     
  15. sedm1000

    Mobster

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,244


    There is no doubt that Saddam wasn`t a very nice person, but was this legitimate reason to invade (given it seems to be the only legitimate reason)? Think Liberia and Zimbabwe for a start. Why is the US loathe to make any committment hear, despite their "unpleasant" leaderships?
     
  16. drumm23

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 403

    Location: Geneva

    Agreed, both are bad. But on the "Evil rating" they don't quite get to Saddam's lofty heights. However, GWB has put pressure on Charles Taylor to step-down, and hopefully that will happen soon. Regarding Mugabe, I personally wouldn't have a problem with the US taking him out, but the wider world undoubtedly would.
     
    Last edited: 9 Jul 2003
  17. Nana

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 9 Nov 2002

    Posts: 1,342

    er lol....if we went around removing every world leader hell bent on achieving a personal agenda of wealth and power, surely we would have invaded the usa months ago?
     
  18. sedm1000

    Mobster

    Joined: 19 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,244

    Thats just a matter of presentation....Saddam has been demonised for years, but was previously a trustworthy ally. Mugabes bad press has not long started. Most people dont even know who Taylor is.:rolleyes:
     
  19. drumm23

    Gangster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 403

    Location: Geneva

    Again, I agree. But hopefully neither will have the time to make too big a name for themselves!
     
  20. elbows

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,156

    OK we debated all the Iraq war stuff to death before the war even began, so what interests me now with these stories from the BBC and others is what forces are behind it.

    Its happening in America too, people are starting to question Bush more, in a way not seen since 9/11. Or more specifically, the Media and Journalists are starting to question him more.

    Part of its just naturally because the "war is over", so its not so unpatriotic to question the stuff afterwards, and those that just wanted rid of Saddam so didnt want to give credence to the idea that the pro-war case from the US & UK governments was full of holes, well Saddam is gone now so they can criticise without spoiling their own agenda.

    Another part of it relates to how government control of certain media and journalists works. The history of BBC vs elected governments over the years is supposed to show how impartial they are, but it avoids the issue of the intelligence services and permanent non-elected government officials.

    The corporate media here and in the states isnt so different, they just have a few additional financial fators swaying their judgement.

    Anyway what I am trying to say is that the media is a marvelous indicator of what many kinds of powerful people & institutions and corporations think.

    So thats why I think Bush is cooked, many journo's have been let off the leash, it will build up to something eventually. The situation regarding Blair is less clear due to a lack of credible opposition to his leadership, both within the Labour party and from other political parties. So I shall watch with interest how the BBC portrays the Tories and the Lib Dems. Its my opinion that this year they are slowly giving the Tories a tad more respect (no Ian Duncan Smith though) and that they dont pick on the Lib Dems too much.