Deceived over fake documents: Attention Deficit America

[Taco John]

From LewRockwell.com:

by Paul Craig Roberts

Excuse me, but the story is not CBS and the George W. Bush National Guard documents.

The story is: How did the US Congress, the opposition party, the news media, and the US public let the Bush administration start a war based on phony documents?

If someone deceived CBS and passed off forged documents as real, at least CBS consulted experts about the documents before going on the air.

Speaking of questionable documents, the Bush administration has swallowed a large number. What about the obviously forged "yellowcake" documents that were the basis for the "mistaken" claim that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program?

The Bush administration did not check out the "stovepiped" phony "intelligence" fed them by Iraqi exiles with an agenda and by neoconservatives determined to turn the "war on terror" into a war against Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

The Bush administration ignored all warnings from real experts and CIA and State Department analysts. Bush invaded a country that not only posed no threat to the United States, but also had no weapons of mass destruction and no connections to Osama bin Laden.

The Bush administration’s forged war has cost more than 1,000 American families their sons, husbands, fathers, brothers and a few their sisters, daughters and mothers. Another 7,000–8,000 American soldiers have been wounded, more than half too grievously to be returned to combat. Many have lost arms, legs, eyes.

What have we achieved with these enormous casualties?

We have committed war crimes by bombing residential neighborhoods and killing thousands of women and children.

We have made ourselves infamous as prison torturers.

We have created an insurgency that we cannot put down.

We have given bin Laden an enormous boost in credibility and terrorist recruitment.

We have lost the world’s sympathy.

We have aroused massive anger from Muslims the world over and started a process of Muslim reunification.

We have wasted $200 billion that had high opportunity costs in terms of real needs that went unmet.

We made these egregious mistakes because the Bush administration and the President of the United States used questionable documents that Dan Rather and CBS would have rejected.

You have to ask yourself, why is the front page story CBS? If CBS had forged the documents in order to intentionally mislead the public the way Bush’s government used phony documents to start a war, yes there would be a story.

If someone fooled CBS with forged documents, the only story is: what was that person’s agenda? Why did he do it? Did the forger intend it as an offset dirty trick to the "swift boats" dirty trick against Kerry, or was it a blow aimed at CBS?

The CBS report is about something we already know – the missing gap in Bush’s National Guard service. If the CBS report fails to illume that gap, then the story remains to be told. News organizations should get off CBS and on the story.

Whether documents are forged or authentic, the CBS investigation of Bush’s National Guard service is far less important than Bush’s war based on intentional deception.

Will the American public focus long enough to demand the real story?


http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts70.html

[Taco John]

How did the US Congress, the opposition party, the news media, and the US public let the Bush administration start a war based on phony documents?

[watermock]

Speaking of the Sudan, it's good to see the U.N. moving against Al Qaeda there while a Genocide is taking place.

Annan and the French are still pissed off the US killed their lucrative little Food for Terrorism Programme to build Palaces with Goshe Furniture for Saddam

Annan is too busy looking at Bush to realize Al Qaeda is wiping out the Black Christians, (well, they are basically allready dead), and are now killing Native Black Muslims.

Taco, if you don't think the Sudan is an Al Quaeda hotbed, I don't know what to say. They want to use the Sudan as another launching point against Saudi Arabia, the Ultimate Goal is to retake Mecca from the Royal Family. (of course the worlds biggest easily recoverable oilfields isn't a bad side benefit)

Don't bother telling me that Sudan's hands are clean and insult yourself.

There is plenty of evidence Sudan will sell Yellowcake to the first bidder.

[watermock]

Finally, that is a completely seperate story and a diversionary spin that LABF has beaten to death.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Excellent post, TJ.

[patteeu]

I'm a fan of Paul Craig Roberts. I'm not moved by his argument on this subject though.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm a fan of Paul Craig Roberts. I'm not moved by his argument on this subject though.

I'd be interested in hearing the argument that dismisses the fact that there have been no WMDs found, and yet justifies the war in Iraq. Preferably one without a moving target. Preferably one that holds the Bush Administration to the same accountability level that they demand from everybody else.

I supported the war in Iraq because I believed that Saddaam had "45 minute" capability. We've found nothing. Not so much as even a footprint in the sand that would indicate large scale WMD development.

Basically, all we've found is that the UN inspectors were right. Which sickens me. This president's blundering has done more to legitimize the UN than even his father managed to do.

[watermock]

I'm not going down this road about the Sudan when Islamic Arabs are killing Men Women and Children at an alarming rate and the UN sits on their hands when Bush asks for help.

IMO, it's time to fly a hypothetical plane into the UN. I have had it up to my neck with the UN. They can't kick themselves out of a paper bag.

Name me one thing the U.N. has accomplished in 45 years.

[Taco John]

Who cares about Sudan? Why are you even bringing Sudan up? If we wanted to go into Sudan, then Bush should have made a case for SUDAN and not IRAQ.

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'd be interested in hearing the argument that dismisses the fact that there have been no WMDs found, and yet justifies the war in Iraq. Preferably one without a moving target. Preferably one that holds the Bush Administration to the same accountability level that they demand from everybody else.

First, altho the US won't publicly announce it, it's common knowlege that scuds were moved to Syria, on a site I have allready posted. We continue to negotiate with the Syrians about closing the border where terrorists continue to pour into Iraq. We don't have the resources to invade Syria at this point.

I supported the war in Iraq because I believed that Saddaam had "45 minute" capability. We've found nothing. Not so much as even a footprint in the sand that would indicate large scale WMD development.

There wasn't 45 minute capability. However, there was always hostile intent. Labs with the knowlege of WMD nerve gas were in "pesticide" mode for the UN. Many chemicals were dumped into the rivers for the Shia in the outlet of the Euphrates. To say that there were no WMD is amusing to me, since they were allready under Mr. Blixx and his band of idiots. You people are so short sighted. Why didn Saddam prevent the inspectors then let them in later? Blixx himself did a Kerry after he dumped out and wrote his pathetic book. Here are the facts: Saddam had put his WMD program into hibernation with every intention of putting them back into use. 2. He was paying suicide bombers 25K a catch. 3. His Scuds were moved to Syria. 4. Chemicals were dumped into the river. 5. All this was done to try to lift sanctions. Any analysis of the behaviour of Saddam Hussein would of shown that once sanctions were lifted, he would of continued his WMD development, just like Iran and N. Korea allready has. 6. Beezlebub says he is scared about his countless litters but doesn't know his peanuts are gone.

Basically, all we've found is that the UN inspectors were right. Which sickens me. This president's blundering has done more to legitimize the UN than even his father managed to do.[/QUOTE]

[errand]

Congrats TJ...your conversion is complete.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I supported the war in Iraq because I believed that Saddaam had "45 minute" capability. We've found nothing. Not so much as even a footprint in the sand that would indicate large scale WMD development.

Basically, all we've found is that the UN inspectors were right. Which sickens me. This president's blundering has done more to legitimize the UN than even his father managed to do.

And I'm sure it is completely impossible for those WMDs to be relocated during the 15 months Bush spent trying to get the UN to uphold their resolutions?

And with the UN already caught with it's hand in the cookie jar (oil for food scandal)...I'm sure we can take their word that Saddam had no WMD's whatsoever. I guess all those Kurds died of natural causes, huh?

[watermock]

The point about Sudan is who cares?

Excuse me but our plate is kinda full?

This is a typical example how the UN is totally worthless.

Germany, France, Russia, and others haven't done crap. That's the ****ing issue.

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Who cares about Sudan? Why are you even bringing Sudan up? If we wanted to go into Sudan, then Bush should have made a case for SUDAN and not IRAQ.

The US has allready asked for help in the Sudan!

Who cares about the Sudan? You tell me! It's a ****ing genocide while France and Germany sit on their hands is what it is.

Our plate is full in Afganistan and Iraq. What part of this escapes you.

I really don't blame you TJ, you live in Seattle.

[watermock]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Who cares about Sudan? Why are you even bringing Sudan up? If we wanted to go into Sudan, then Bush should have made a case for SUDAN and not IRAQ.

I don't know why I brought it up. Maybe because they have killed all the Christians.

Maybe it's because they have uranium mines.

Maybe because there is a genocide going on while Arabs run crazy lopping off heads.

I must be confused.

[watermock]

Want to play?


Cecilia Holland (Compass Direct)

Proving once again that to jihadists, tolerance and pluralism only go one way, Muslim officials in Sudan have whipped a Christian girl for not wearing a headscarf. Where now are the Muslim voices that cried out for human rights and religious freedom in France? Why aren't they protesting this kind of thing?

April 28 (Compass) — Sudan’s Islamic regime in Khartoum lashed and fined a young Christian Sudanese woman in mid April for not wearing a headscarf in public in the capital city.
Cecilia John Holland, 27, was given 40 lashes on her back and fined 10,000 Sudanese dinars ($40) by the Sizana Islamic Court in Khartoum on April 14, sources in the capital confirmed to Compass.

A Christian born in southern Sudan, Holland was traveling by minibus to her home in the Khartoum suburb of Haj Yousif on the night of April 13 when she was arrested by a group of 10 public-order policemen, some in uniform and others in plainclothes.

She was just boarding the bus near Badr gardens in Khartoum Two at 9 p.m. when the police apparently spotted her. A police van pulled ahead of the bus, ordering the driver to stop, and Holland was dragged off the bus into the van.

When Holland tried to pull free, protesting that she was a Christian and a southerner, she was struck with a hard blow on the neck and forced into the van. Four other women were already detained there, all wearing scarves, although their attire was tight and revealing.

With temperatures in Khartoum ranging between 100 and 105 degrees F., Holland was wearing modest long sleeves and an ankle-length skirt, but her hair was uncovered.

The police told Holland she was being arrested for not wearing a scarf. No one in Khartoum, “even a non-Muslim,” she was told, was exempt from Islamic bans against wearing improper dress. ...

On the morning of April 14, the accused women were taken to the Sizana Islamic Court. There a policeman swore an oath on the Koran and then read out the charges against Holland and the other women. None of the accused women were allowed to say a word to the court.

According to the police version of Holland’s case, she was accused of “standing near a garden at night” and “not wearing a scarf on her head at 11 p.m.” The police refused to register that she was employed, writing instead that she was “jobless.”

Holland, who holds a diploma in catering from Khartoum Applied Sciences College, is employed as a catering officer for a local non-governmental organization.

Declaring Holland guilty, the Sizana court sentenced her to be lashed 40 times on her back and pay a fine of 10,000 Sudanese dinars. That afternoon, after being whipped and paying the cash penalty, she was released. The fine represented a third of Holland’s monthly salary. ...

Holland’s forced subjection to the restrictions and harsh punishments of Islamic law dramatizes one key issue now deadlocking a year of ongoing peace talks between the National Islamic Front government in Khartoum and the southern leadership of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM).

Earlier this month, the Khartoum government refused to compromise on its insistence that Islamic law govern all Sudanese citizens residing in Khartoum. More than two million non-Muslim southerners live in and around the capital, displaced by the last 20 years of civil war between the African Christian-animist south and the Arab Muslim north.

So far the SPLM’s alternative proposals have been outright rejected, to either establish a separate enclave within the capital for southerners, or subject its non-Muslim Sudanese to the same secular laws to be followed in the south during a six-year period of self-rule.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir claimed on April 13 that southern negotiators had abandoned their demands and agreed to have “only one legislation” in Khartoum. According to an Agence France Press report, Bashir said the compromise came “after we gave them convincing guarantees regarding the cultural and religious diversities among the citizens.”

But a SPLM spokesman denied any such agreement, which would in effect make the south’s non-Muslims “second-class citizens” in the country’s political capital.


"Second-class citizens": i.e., dhimmis.

Posted at April 29, 2004 01:47 AM

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)
I also am aghast at the non reporting of Islamic terror and atrocities against BLACK or ASIAN christians .
I have been "aghast about it for many years".
It is shameful that only attacks against westerners are considered newsworthy.
This is RACISM by the press.
When these attacks are reported the attackers are described as "Local militants" or "rampaging mobs burn down local building" etc.
read "fanatic muslim burn down christian churches"
In the South Thailand incident the BBC excuses its use of the term Muslim by suggesting that the attacks are a result of "years of oppression".
Such is the infiltration of muslim propaganda in the western press!

Posted by: davo at April 29, 2004 02:11 AM
Just a bunch of savages. "Religion of peace my arse" as Jim Royle would say.

http://www.ropma.com

Posted by: Bob at April 29, 2004 11:19 AM
Just showing the concept of "no compulsion in religion" which at one time meant that those non-Muslims would not have to dress as a Muslim - why should Christian women be required to wear a headscarf? Another way to intimidate and focus Islam and its UGLINESS and EVIL upon everyone in the country.
This is happening more and more around the world - watch out! This UGLINESS and EVIL are soon to be playing in your neighborhood!
Why isn't there a cry out for "Human Rights" by the West? the rights of "WOMEN" to determine how they wish to dress?
Of course, no one is allowed to speak the truth about Islam!

jihan


Posted by: jihan at April 29, 2004 01:46 PM
the women's rights groups were well presented at the "right to choose" or abortion rights rally just recently. I wish they could get more motivated about other things.

Posted by: bob at April 29, 2004 03:01 PM
Non-Muslim women living in Muslim neighborhoods of Paris and surrounding areas are subjeted to "non-official" punishments by their neighbors for not wearing the headscarf and wearing what is termed as "improper dress."

These people have moved to a country with already established social mores and are IMPOSING and creating social policy which is an OBLIGATION of Islam - "move to the land of the Infidel, reside there, and don't accept any of their dirty ways...until there are enough of you in numbers to gain the land for Islam."

I think their intention is clear whether it's the Sudan, France, Canada, the United States, or Mars! A few determined fanatics have had great success in the past. We must counter them before it's too late.

Posted by: epg at April 29, 2004 10:41 PM
Non-Muslim women living in Muslim neighborhoods of Paris and surrounding areas are subjeted to "non-official" punishments by their neighbors for not wearing the headscarf and wearing what is termed as "improper dress."

These people have moved to a country with already established social mores and are IMPOSING and creating social policy which is an OBLIGATION of Islam - "move to the land of the Infidel, reside there, and don't accept any of their dirty ways...until there are enough of you in numbers to gain the land for Islam."

I think their intention is clear whether it's the Sudan, France, Canada, the United States, or Mars! A few determined fanatics have had great success in the past. We must counter them before it's too late.

Posted by: epg at April 29, 2004 10:41 PM

I agree totally!!!! I also think we had better arm ourselves and tell Muslims they can live how they want as long as they don't 'impose' their lifestyle on us, and also make laws prohibiting Muslims or Middle Eastern persons from owning firearms.
Treat them as equals, but let them know in no uncertain terms we will not tolerate their infiltration. Go home, shut up, or convert to the West, which is mainly Christian!
If these people think they can go around in countries getting all over us, I think we had better ship them out now, while we still have peace.
To get a better formed idea about countering this menace would require some research. But I think Israel has got it right in its treatment of Arabs living in Israel. Don't trust 'em!

Posted by: Daniel McAloon at May 6, 2004 11:19 AM

[watermock]

Let's Play more on the Sudan Taco.

[watermock]

TJ, dont even start on me. My eyes burn enough. Open yours.

[watermock]

this is such filth on the French it isn't even funny.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by errand

And I'm sure it is completely impossible for those WMDs to be relocated during the 15 months Bush spent trying to get the UN to uphold their resolutions?

And with the UN already caught with it's hand in the cookie jar (oil for food scandal)...I'm sure we can take their word that Saddam had no WMD's whatsoever. I guess all those Kurds died of natural causes, huh?

All I want is proof of what Bush was saying was true. I'm not a partyline wonk who will just accept whatever the government says. Bush said there were WMDs and that we'd find them. So far, the only thing that has been found is proof that the UN Weapons inspectors were right. You can sit there all day and tell me that the Emporer has clothes on, and they are the grandest of threads... But I can see with my own eyes that the emporer has none on.

WMD facilities leace some sort of footprint in the sand and leave traces of uncommon elements that can be used to detect them. We've found nothing that would indicate that any of this existed. Further, I have heard nothing from this administration that would convince me that they have any idea whether or not they existed in the first place. For all we know, it's just a wild goose chase.

All that I'm asking for is some real accountability. I am in complete agreement with the doctrine of pre-emptiveness so long as the accountability is there in the end. We went to war because of very specific claims by this government. Those claims have proven to be false and now it's time for Bush to be held accountable for his actions. He gambled and lost and now we're faced with a quagmire in Iraq that seems to have no end in sight.

[watermock]

Did they test the river?

Have they gone to Syria and looked into their bunkers?

Have they talked to the scientists that were standing by at the "Pesticide" plants?

If we were so sure that Saddam didn't have WMD, why were our troops in full WMD clothing?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'd be interested in hearing the argument that dismisses the fact that there have been no WMDs found, and yet justifies the war in Iraq.

Yes, this is really the crux of the matter.

Remember Kinda-sleaza Rice's rhetoric about mushroom clouds, etc.?

Remember Bush and his various point men insisting that we had to rush to war and that, much to the protestations of Hans Blix and the entire sentient world, we couldn't afford to wait just a little longer for the weapons inspectors to finish their work?

Well, now we know why Bush couldn't wait for the inspections to be finished, don't we?

The inspectors would have told us what we know now, i.e., that there were no WMD.

Then the disaster monkey wouldn't have been able to have his war.

Imagine how upset the corporate interests who put Smirk in office would have been!

[Popps]

There were plenty of reasons for removing Hussein and if you don't want to face them, you're living in the land of September the 10th. Don't believe me? Ask John Kerry....

(From Jan 11th, 2004 Meet the Press after Dean's famous "we're no better off" statement)

SEN. KERRY: I think the judgment of a nominee who doesn’t understand that having Saddam Hussein captured will make it extraordinarily difficult to be able to beat an incumbent wartime president who captured Saddam Hussein. And let me tell you why, Tim.  Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn’t just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States. This is a man who has used weapons of mass destruction, unlike other people on this Earth today, not only against other people but against his own people. This is a man who tried to assassinate a former president of the United States, a man who lobbed 36 missiles into Israel in order to destabilize the Middle East, a man who is so capable of miscalculation that he even brought this war on himself. This is a man who, if he was left uncaptured, would have continued to be able to organize the Ba’athists. He would have continued to terrorize the people, just in their minds, because of 30 years of terror in Iraq.


If you think the ONLY reason we went into Iraq was for WMD's... you're either intellectually lazy or so partisan that you choose to ignore reality.

There were plenty of reasons to go into Iraq. Bush just chose the wrong one to run with. The CIA gave him bad intelligence, so he says. Now.. I know that's incredibly hard to believe after 9.11... right?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099

Before anyone tries to impugn the source, keep in mind that the foregoing quotes from Powell and Rice were videotaped by the author during the filming of his documentary.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Taco John

The story is: How did the US Congress, the opposition party, the news media, and the US public let the Bush administration start a war based on phony documents?

I think it's because the news stations USED to be independent; they competed with each other, and reporters used to try to be the first with the best stories; they used to dig for the facts. We used to BELIEVE the news. But now corporations have bought up all the stations, and the same stories - literally - run on every source. There is no competition, no independence, and reporters just tow the owners' line and use each others' feeds. And the corporations all love Bush and the Republicans, so they want Americans to think Bush's victory is inevitable. We've been taught since childhood that a free press is essential to a democracy, and it is, but we don't have one any more.