 sj |
||
|
||
BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: katlaughing Date: 25 Mar 03 - 03:59 PM I have been listening to Seymour Hersch, who writes for the New Yorker, as he is interviewed on NPR. He has an important article out, just now, which you may read here: Who Lied to Whom? Basically, he reports, with solid quotes, etc., that fake documents were accepted and used by the CIA, to the highest and most secure of intelligence briefings in the White House, to bolster the claims of Blair and Bush's governments to go after Iraq. Bush even mentioned the false info that Iraq had aluminum tubes which were to be used for WMD's, in his State of the Union speech. I urge everyone of whatever persuasion, vis a vis this war and administration, to read this article. Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: artbrooks Date: 25 Mar 03 - 04:07 PM Not new news...I think it was CNN on-line that discussed it about a week ago. Not all that surprising, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 25 Mar 03 - 04:37 PM Kat: Thanks for the cite. I had heard the interview, but did not recall the facts. Whether or not it is new, or surprising, it's stuff I wanted to know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Jim Dixon Date: 25 Mar 03 - 06:47 PM In today's St. Paul Pioneer Press CIA analysts criticize handling of Iraq reports (Originally from the New York Times, but it's easier for me to find in the PP.) A few quotes:
CIA officials say they communicated their doubts to the administration about the evidence [of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal], but the charges still found their way into Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Charley Noble Date: 25 Mar 03 - 07:28 PM Thanks for the link, Kat. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Gareth Date: 25 Mar 03 - 07:37 PM Well - I suspect that we will soon find out wether S H has weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunatly I also suspect that we will pay for that information in Blood. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: diesel Date: 25 Mar 03 - 07:48 PM Thanks for the link Kat, Could it not be that the American administration 'wanted' to belive the forgeries. Just, as I am against the war - I therefore 'want' to believe they are forgeries and therefore the story you linked. Such is the way smokescreens and deception work. Again thanks ! Diesel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: NicoleC Date: 25 Mar 03 - 08:13 PM I suspect Saddam stil has some chemical weapons around -- heck, we sold them to him in the first place -- and they don't go bad quickly like biological weapons. However, I equally suspet that if we don't find any WMD in Iraq pretty soon, we'll conveniently "find" them anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Mark Clark Date: 25 Mar 03 - 08:21 PM Thanks, Kat. Although I must say I'm shocked… SHOCKED to learn that the U.S. Government or its agencies could be guilty of deceit. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Metchosin Date: 25 Mar 03 - 08:43 PM I'm AWED that The Tailor of Panama rides again |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Bobert Date: 25 Mar 03 - 09:34 PM Now far be it fir this ol' hillbilly to gloat *but* I've been talkin' about this issue for a least a month here on various threads. And I've had the usual cast of Busg goose-steppers ignore me. Well, thanks, kat, for the link. Maybe now some of the usual cast will satrt to ask themselves just how much of the crap that they write is theirs and how much is taxpayer bought PR crap? Think back on the PR campaigne to sell the war. What was the first PR ploy? Does anyone even remember? I do! It was Condolesa Rice's satement that when would we take Saddam seriously? "When the mushroom cloud was over us?" Remember that? Well, that got the ball rolling. Unfotunately it was based on a lie and *badly* forged documents. The CIA said that the documents looked to have been altered no better that any high schooler could have done it. So here we are a war, where the working class will not only fight it and die in it, but end up paying for it while Bush and his crooks will get richer, and the selling of it was absed on *poorly* forged documents. Meanwhile, the trolls of the world will balme it all on Clinton????? Give my poor ol' butt a break and while you're at it... Beam me up Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Hrothgar Date: 26 Mar 03 - 03:11 AM I wouldn't believe the CIA if they said the sun rose in the east if I didn't have independent corroboration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: katlaughing Date: 26 Mar 03 - 06:00 AM Same here, Hrothgar! :-) Thanks, ya'll. Sorry I've missed this before, Bobert. The NPR interview really caught my attention. I did notice that Hersch has been talking about it before this,too. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Teribus Date: 26 Mar 03 - 06:51 AM NicoleC "I suspect Saddam stil has some chemical weapons around -- heck, we sold them to him in the first place..." Proof please - and please don't mention the cultures given to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to assist Iraq in improving their defence capability against chemical/biological attack - those supplies were so vast that the Iraqi Scientist involved carried them back back to Iraq with him in his cabin lugguage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 26 Mar 03 - 09:15 PM Yes. Very implausible we sold them to Iraq. So unnecessary. They could so easily have fabricated them themselves. But I think the U.S. was a bit complicit in their using those weapons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Troll Date: 26 Mar 03 - 09:51 PM Two or three thousand chemical protection suits were found in a hospital along with thousands of doses of atropine, the antidote for nerve gas. We are less than a week into this war folks. The inspectors had 12 years. Right now the military is engaged with the enemy and probably don't have much time to spare to look for WMDs. The chemical plant that was captured has scarcely been touched; they have only entered 5 of the around 100 bunkers in the complex. There is also intel that Saddam has ordered the Republican Guard to use Chemicals (probably gas) if a certain line around Baghdad is crossed. I understand that Saddam nearly bought all the atropine on the German market last year. Why buy it if not to protect his troops from the effects of nerve gas? Why have the chemical protection suits if not to protect against mustard gas? And WHO does he feel will use those proscribed agents? You know damned well who. Saddam has used poison gas before and I personally have no doubt that he will use it again when the time is right for him. NicoleC, your,"However, I equally suspet that if we don't find any WMD in Iraq pretty soon, we'll conveniently "find" them anyway." plays right into Saddams propaganda; that if WMDs are found, the US must have planted them. Yeah. Right. Whatever. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: NicoleC Date: 26 Mar 03 - 10:09 PM Michael Dobb's investigative article in the Washington Post 12/29/02 is not a bad place to start. Including, but not limited to, the approval of Dow Chemical's sale of $1.5 million dollars worth of pesticides known to have chemical warfare applications in 1988. I'd hoped to find images of the declassified documents referenced, but the Smoking Gun has been falling down on the job, I guess. But I did find this still photo from the controversial BBC film of Dubya before the speech. Don't know why the WH is so upset; it's not like we don't know somebody fixes the Prez's hair before his gives a speech :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: NicoleC Date: 26 Mar 03 - 10:22 PM Saddam's propaganda?! Hardly. The US absolutely can't afford not to find stuff in Iraq, period. No way, no how. Can you imagine the political reaction if nothing was found?! It doesn't matter what political party was in office or whether or not such a "find" was authorized by the Prez, it'd get planted once the situation reached this kind of extreme. That's not propaganda, that's political reality, and if it helps repair the US's damaged credibility, it's probably worth it. As long as we're slaughtering all those folks anyway, what's a little blame? Maybe we'll find out in 30 or 40 years when the docs get declassified; maybe not. They don't always send memos about this sort of thing. As for why would Saddam buy protective gear, it COULD be for the same reason the US buys protective gear for their soldiers. Just a thought. Or because the US keeps making threats about how no weapon is off the table -- uh, WHO is threatening the use of WMD? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest Date: 27 Mar 03 - 12:18 AM Seems all the more obvious every day that some powers attached to Bush and his mates had a very big hand in the organisation of Sept 11th. in order to gain the moral high ground in order to carry out what has happened since then. Colateral casualties just like the soldiers and civilians killed in these two wars. Your undemocratically elected leaders are nothing but wealthy, powerful criminals. wake up. The lies and deceit would be laughable if people were not being murdered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Teribus Date: 27 Mar 03 - 05:10 AM Nicole, Thanks for the article, very interesting, but it supplies no proof to support your contention that the US supplied Iraq with chemical or biological weapons. Troll pointed out the discovery of stores of CB suits and ampules of atropine. Your response in your post above: "As for why would Saddam buy protective gear, it COULD be for the same reason the US buys protective gear for their soldiers. Just a thought." For the last forty years US and NATO forces have always carried CB suits and atropine - even on exercise. The significant difference Nicole is that then, as now in Iraq, US/UK and Australian troops have those items issued to them and carry them at all times - The Iraqi army, Republican Guard, etc., do not. The explanation of this difference is that coalition forces have to ready to protect themselves from an attack that could come at any time - The Iraqi's don't, they can issue that kit to their troops immediately prior to them launching such an attack. "Or because the US keeps making threats about how no weapon is off the table -- uh, WHO is threatening the use of WMD?" US and UK forces have no chemical or biological munitions, they have no need for such weapons and have not had for over forty years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:59 PM Well, Teribus, it depends on what you mean by "proof." The article does say: "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." Most of us have enough faith in a major unaffiliated newspaper like the Post to assume it wouldn't make that up out of whole cloth. That's not proof sufficient to hold up in court, but it's about as good as anything you are ever going to see in this part of the Forum. Maybe you can rebut it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Forum Lurker Date: 27 Mar 03 - 09:03 PM Teribus-We still have the munitions. We just haven't brought them to the battlefields yet. I suppose that a 21,000 pound fuel-air explosive is close enough to a weapon of mass destruction for Dubya. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 27 Mar 03 - 09:06 PM I am with you Troll
This isn't the first thread the LaughKat has started...and then crept away from with her tail between her legs.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: NicoleC Date: 27 Mar 03 - 10:03 PM Ah, I see. Iraq is supposed to believe that the US, Israel and Iran (it's chief enemies) do not have biological and chemical weapons simply because they SAY so! (Despite much intelligence to the contrary, particularly in regard to Israel and Iran.) One wonders, then, where that US military weaponized strain of anthrax came from last year, if, indeed, all our stocks had been destroyed as the US declared? So Iraq uses common insecticides dropped from US-purchased helicopters in the 80's and it's a chemical weapon. The US manufactures the same insecticides by the ton, but it's not a chemical weapon when we own it? Citing protective equipment as "proof" is ridiculous... unless you also assume that the billions that the US spends on chemical and biological protective research is also hard proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Teribus Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:54 AM Forum - still waiting for your answer regard pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons? Yes you still have the munitions - for weapons systems that disappeared from the US military inventories shortly after the Vietnam War. The exact numbers, types and calibres are all a matter of public record - as are the locations where they are stored - all audited and verified as part of the control process. They are currently being destroyed and, if the US military fulfils it's obligations under law to Congress, they will all be completely destroyed by the year 2007. Since finding the Iraqi C/B suits on three different occasions US and UK senior personnel have been asked if the Iraqi's could have those suits to protect themselves from US/UK chemical or biological attack. On each occasion the response was the same - the US and UK do not have any C/B munitions in their inventories - that I could have told those reporters back in 1966 with equal certainty. As weapons systems they are unpredictable, unreliable, they are of extremely limited use - those of my generation had Grandfathers who could attest to that. Nicole - I don't think Iraq doubts for a moment that Iran has chemical/biological weapons, for eight years they both threw them at each other - Iraq more so than Iran. The US will have weaponised strains of anthrax and other weaponised forms of chemical/biological agents - they are required for chemical and biological protective research. This again is common knowledge, with exact details of the stocks and their locations known and checked. Regarding the insecticides - they are not the weapon - they are a long way short of being the weapon - the insecticides are a precursor/precursor source that can be used in the process to manufacture chemical/biological agents - you then have to stabilise it and weaponise it. Regarding the suits - to illustrate the point - you have two gangs of kids, playing soldiers, the game will be monitored by referees. You tell them that your "side" is all out the game if you get water on your shirt. The protection against this is provided in the form of plastic macs. It's a really hot sunny day, wearing these is uncomfortable and inhibits your ability to play the game. You further tell them that only one side will be armed with water pistols. As you wander round in your role as referee you notice that one "side" is either carrying their plastic coats all the time or are actually wearing them. The other "side" are not carrying them, in fact they have them stacked in a pile under a tree at the edge of their area - Which side has the water pistols? You don't have "proof" but it serves as a damned good indication. Here is another good indication - last night I saw, live on TV, an American 155mm Self-Propelled Gun "brew-up", no casualties. It appeared to be a hot gun or a breach failure - i.e. the reason it burst into flames and then exploded was not down to enemy counter battery fire. What I saw was the entire crew run from the vehicle, a gout of flame burst out from around the turret, a flash and an explosion. At no time did any of the gunners running from the gun make any attempt to don respirators or don their C/B suits. There were no shouts of Gas,Gas,Gas - indication - there were no C/B rounds in the vehicle, or near the vehicle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Barry Finn Date: 28 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM Chemical plant, who said it's a chemical plant(pun)? Scud missile, who said it's a scud? Iraqi people rejoicing & welcoming the liberators, who said something like that? Syria, who said that now they might be considereed hostile if, what were those demands? Iran , do they now have to fear the invaiders after, what & who made that statement? Are the Korean's really that afraid of us, why? Why do we think the UN member nations will help to foot the bill for something that they wouldn't support, what 45 nations & why won't share the rightful spoils of our war? To many questionable, what? Kat, why am I not suprised? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 29 Mar 03 - 08:41 AM Teribus, or anyone else, when exactly did the US administration undergo its Damascene conversion re the use of chemical weapons (in which I include nepalm, as used so successful as a means to set people on fire in Korea and Vietnam)? When did the US first decide to piss on international law (and the international court, which had largely been its own idea) and why did it recently regain its respect for the Geneva conventions? And does blatant self-interest have anything to do with any of the administration's many U-turns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 29 Mar 03 - 10:26 PM Sober up, Gargoyle. :-) You'd be for cannibalism if Kat came out against it. This story about the forged documents presented by the USA to the U.N. as supposed evidence of Iraqui wrongdoing was in the Canadian news some time ago. The U.N. themselves rejected the documents after they were examined by experts who detected that they were indeed forgeries. Line it up alongside Blair's cribbing of a decade-old and quite obsolete description of Iraq's weapons situation in the very early 90's. Don't be surprised that you have not been hearing ALL about it on the controlled media in homeland USA. Don't be a bit surprised. Notice how your news services keep showing heartwarming photos of gallant coalition soldiers carrying wounded Iraquis, giving a cigarette to a wounded Iraqui soldier, etc...? Ha! Ha! Oh my, it is all so transparent. Reminds me of those heartwarming photos of Wehrmacht soldiers being given flowers by admiring people in the countries they overran in 1939-42 (and yes! Things like that did sometimes happen...and the German press corp was always there to make sure the loyal folks back home saw how well-loved their brave boys were as they "liberated" Europe and made the World a safer and better place in the process...). Like I said, ha! ha! Enjoy your fantasies of moral legitimacy while they last in New Berlin, D.C. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New Yorker article - Forged docs re Iraq From: katlaughing Date: 29 Mar 03 - 10:37 PM Barry, I know what you mean. Thanks, LH, that's just gargie's funny way of showing how much he loves me. gargie...that's the only view you'll ever get of my tail...no matter how often you declare your love.. |