You are herecontent / Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS

Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS

By David Swanson

Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq War to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9 to 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes on this will actually save you time, because you'll never watch television news again – not even on PBS, which comes in for its share of criticism.

While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in "Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been wrong or avoidable.

It's great to see an American media outlet tell this story so well, but it leads one to ask: When will Congress tell it? While the Democrats were in the minority, they clamored for hearings and investigations, they pushed Resolutions of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group and the Downing Street Minutes. Now, in the majority, they've gone largely silent. The chief exception is the House Judiciary Committee's effort to question Condoleezza Rice next week about the forged Niger documents.

But what comes out of watching this show is a powerful realization that no investigation is needed by Congress, just as no hidden information was needed for the media to get the story right in the first place. The claims that the White House made were not honest mistakes. But neither were they deceptions. They were transparent and laughably absurd falsehoods. And they were high crimes and misdemeanors.

The program opens with video of President Bush saying "Iraq is part of a war on terror. It's a country that trains terrorists, it's a country that can arm terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country."

Was that believable or did the media play along? The next shot is of a press conference at which Bush announces that he has a script telling him which reporters to call on in what order. Yet the reporters play along, raising their hands after each comment, pretending that they might be called on despite the script.

Video shows Richard Perle claiming that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda and that Iraqis would greet American occupiers as liberators. Here are the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, William Safire at the New York Times, Charles Krauthammer and Jim Hoagland at the Washington Post all demanding an overthrow of Iraq's government. George Will is seen saying that Hussein "has anthrax, he loves biological weapons, he has terrorist training camps, including 747s to practice on."

But was that even plausible? Bob Simon of "60 Minutes" tells Moyers he wasn't buying it. He says he saw the idea of a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda as an absurdity: "Saddam, as most tyrants, was a total control freak. He wanted total control of his regime. Total control of the country. And to introduce a wild card like al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant."

Knight Ridder Bureau Chief John Walcott didn't buy it either. He assigned Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay to do the reporting, and they found the Bush claims to be quite apparently false. For example, when the Iraqi National Congress (INC) fed the New York Times' Judith Miller a story through an Iraqi defector claiming that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons labs under his house, Landay noticed that the source was a Kurd, making it very unlikely he would have learned such secrets. But Landay also noticed that it was absurd to imagine someone putting a biological weapons lab under his house.

But absurd announcements were the order of the day. A video clip shows a Fox anchor saying "A former top Iraqi nuclear scientist tells Congress Iraq could build three nuclear bombs by 2005." And the most fantastic stories of all were fed to David Rose at Vanity Fair Magazine. We see a clip of him saying "The last training exercise was to blow up a full size mock up of a US destroyer in a lake in central Iraq."

Landay comments: "Or jumping into pits of fouled water and having to kill a dog with your bare teeth. I mean, this was coming from people, who are appearing in all of these stories, and sometimes their rank would change."

Forged documents from Niger could not have gotten noticed in this stew of lies. Had there been some real documents honestly showing something, that might have stood out and caught more eyes. Walcott describes the way the INC would feed the same info to the Vice President and Secretary of Defense that it fed to a reporter, and the reporter would then get the claims confirmed by calling the White House or the Pentagon. Landay adds: "And let's not forget how close these people were to this administration, which raises the question, was there coordination? I can't tell you that there was, but it sure looked like it."

Simon from 60 Minutes tells Moyers that when the White House claimed a 9-11 hijacker had met with a representative of the Iraqi government in Prague, 60 Minutes was easily able to make a few calls and find out that there was no evidence for the claim. "If we had combed Prague," he says, "and found out that there was absolutely no evidence for a meeting between Mohammad Atta and the Iraqi intelligence figure. If we knew that, you had to figure the administration knew it. And yet they were selling the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam."

Moyers questions a number of people about their awful work, including Dan Rather, Peter Beinart, and then Chairman and CEO of CNN Walter Isaacson. And he questions Simon, who soft-pedaled the story and avoided reporting that there was no evidence.

Landay at Knight Ridder did report the facts when it counted, but not enough people paid attention. He tells Moyers that all he had to do was read the UN weapons inspectors reports online to know the White House was lying to us. When Cheney said that Hussein was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, Landay knew he was lying: "You need tens of thousands of machines called 'centrifuges' to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. You've got to house those in a fairly big place, and you've got to provide a huge amount of power to this facility."

Moyers also hits Tim Russert with a couple of tough questions. Russert expressed regret for not having included any skeptical voices by saying he wished his phone had rung. So, Moyers begins the next segment by saying "Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring," and describing Simon's reporting. Simon says he knew the claims about aluminum tubes were false because 60 Minutes called up some scientists and researchers and asked them. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post says that skeptical stories did not get placed on the front page because they are not "definitive."

Moyers shows brief segments of an Oprah show in which she has on only pro-war guests and silences a caller who questions some of the White House claims. Just in time for the eternal election season, Moyers includes clips of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing the war on the basis of Bush and Cheney's lies. But we also see clips of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy getting it right.

The Washington Post editorialized in favor of the war 27 times, and published in 2002 about 1,000 articles and columns on the war. But the Post gave a huge anti-war march a total of 36 words. "What got even less ink," Moyers says, "was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate." Even the misleading partial version that the media received failed to fool a careful eye.

Landay recalls: "It said that the majority of analysts believed that those tubes were for the nuclear weapons program. It turns out, though, that the majority of intelligence analysts had no background in nuclear weapons." Was Landay the only one capable of noticing this detail?

Colin Powell's UN presentation comes in for similar quick debunking. We watch a video clip of Powell complaining that Iraq has covered a test stand with a roof. But AP reporter Charles Hanley comments: "What he neglected to mention was that the inspectors were underneath watching what was going on."

Powell cited a UK paper, but it very quickly came out that the paper had been plagiarized from a college student's work found online. The British press pointed that out. The US let it slide. But anyone looking for the facts found it quickly.

Moyers' wonderful movie is marred by a single line, the next to the last sentence, in which he says: "The number of Iraqis killed, over 35,000 last year alone, is hard to pin down." A far more accurate figure could have been found very easily.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We stopped watching any and all news on mainstream media at least 2 years ago. We didn't want to hear anymore propaganda and lies, and didn't want to participate in the walking coma of denial.

The Nazi's launched an invasion of a sovereign state, Poland, on 09/01/39. The rationale for that invasion was based on gross lies and and was the catlyst for WWII.

The Bush Regime launched an invasion of a sovereign state, Iraq, on March 20, 2003. The rationale for that invasion was based on gross lies and and could be the catlyst for WWIII or at least a regional conflict in the Mideast.

After a real "Coalition of the Willing" defeated the Nazi's in 1945, the German's responsible for that invasion were tried at Nuremburg, Germany. One of the charges they were convicted on was that Germany had launched an illegal, agressive war against a sovereign state, Poland. Several were executed and other sent to prison.

When Bush claims that his war is like WWII guess he might have a point after all, except for the trial part that is.

The reason they attacked Iraq is the same reason they hate Chavez. The official documents read "To Enhance Relationships with OPEC." The Bush cabal are in bed with the Saudis and the more oil goes up in price the more money they both make no matter what their percentage cut from each barrel is, even if it stays the same. In 2000 Oil was only just over $10 dollars a barrel. Now it's over $60. With the billions of barrels they sell that 6% is going to be a lot higher now. You do the math. The more money they make the more power they get to fund private armies and god knows what else. How does attacking Iraq cause prices of oil to skyrocket you ask? Obviously because it limits the supply. Again this is why they hate Venezuela, because Chavez continues to keep the prices at bay.


Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools Greg Palast
And get the facts.

Is this guy above smoking crack? It's so easy to pin this Iraq fiasco on "they want the oil!" Well, fuck you, asshole. You don't know shit.

These aren't clever enough to carry out a multinational conspriacy just to jack up the price of oil. It's lunatics like you that give the anti-Bush forces a bad name.

lets face it. ISRAEL and its lobby groups with the added control of all their controlled media caused us to go to war.

You're either an idiot or one of those fascists trying to spread the disinformation that anyone opposing the Bush administration is a stupid anti-semite.

Most likely posting comments such as yours above is your day job along with pumping worthless stocks on message boards and commenting in blogs that Global Warming is a myth.

I'd say you're both stupid -- criticism of Israel doesn't have anything to do with anti-semitism. Israel doesn't run U.S. foreign policy, but it has plenty to do with it. As Noam Chomsky points out, it's Israel that acts so badly at the behest of the U.S. It is massive support from the U.S. that allows that de facto theocracy to wage its war of oppressive state terrorism on a refugee population.

Israel cannot be held responsible for the Iraq War, though it seems undeniable that American neo-conservatives acting in what they understand to be Israel's interests played a major role in making the case for it. Jews can not be held responsibie for the Iraq War: American Jews overwhelmingly voted against George Bush. Nevertheless there is evidently an Israeli Fifth Column among the journallists and ideologues who provided the rationale for the war. And more troublesome perhap even than the ideology of neo-conservatism is the climate of fear and self-censorship engendered by AIPAC and people like Abe Foxman: merely to suggest that Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bolton, and Abrams led the case for the Iraq War because they perceived Iraq as a thrat to Israel is to incur the risk of being called anti-Semitic. Disiniterested political discussion of this issue is rendered next to impossible in such a climate of fear, and that works against the one tool available to citizens in a democratically goerned country to dispute a case for war, namely reasoned discourse. The notion that Israel "caused us to go to war" fails to take into account the manifold other reasons that the Bush government went to war in Iraq (oil, the assertiono of American hegemony, etc.). But it is very naive (or worse) to deny that people acting in behalf of Israel can be exonerated of having made a dishonest case for the war.

"The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit think-tank focusing on issues of United States national security. JINSA's stated aim is three-fold: to ensure a strong and effective U.S. national security policy; to educate American leaders on what it views as the vital strategic relationship between the United States and Israel; and to strengthen U.S. cooperation with democratic allies, including Taiwan, Jordan, Hungary, Turkey, India, and NATO member nations, amongst others.

JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and R. James Woolsey, while Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith were all on JINSA's Board of Advisors before they entered the Bush administration. JINSA is officially a non-partisan organization."

The American Jewish lobby should not be held responsible for the Iraq fiasco. That is not just because any such accusation will immediately put the topic outside the bounds of politically correct discourse; it is because the real responsibility lies elsewhere.

The neoconservative dialogue with itself and other extremist thinkers has been going on for decades in the New York-Washington corridor. Norman Podherotz' intellectual cliche in Manhattan began pushing the idea in the early seventies: an America without the guts to put its military behind its convictions is an America that does not learn by history. This tight band of largely Jewish neoconservative nerds, under the cover of intellectualism, came under the leadership of Bill Kristol in the '90s and picked up enough steam to send a brash letter to Bill Clinton in 1998 demanding that he take action against Iraq.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Ronald Reagan nor George Bush (I) nor (if elected) Al Gore were fool enough to put American lives on the line to please these fringies. It took a combination of a fluke election, a 'C' grade history major, his oil-minded VP, the born-again Christian lobby, and our mighty military thinkers to put the neoconservative nonsense into action in Iraq.

However strident their demands, the neocons would have remained another stink-tank lobby on 17th Street DC if George Bush (II) had not listened to his brother Jebb, to Donald Rumsfeld, to Dick Cheney, and to other decidedly non-Jewish advisers. He brought them, and a dozen other signers of the 1997 neoconservative manifesto, (see )into Washington to form a government.

Was this a right-wing Jewish conspiracy?

Hardly. It was a political cabal of the Jerry Fallwell Christian Right, inbred Republican conservatism, the military-industrial lobby, big campaign money interests, a flawed voting system and the home-alone American voter. The neoconservatives suddenly found their wildest dreams came true in 2000. I give full credit to George Bush.

Of course, as of November 2004, I must shift the credit to the "What? Me think?" American voter.

Although I can understand not wanting to watch the news I feel it is important to watch through a good filter. I am an American living in Istanbul Turkey and have watched this war develop since pre 1991.(yes that is right 1991) Although the news we receive is still slanted (CNN Internatıonal, BBC International) I feel it is a bit better than that I recently saw while visiting the US. I was watching CNN in the Atlanta airport and for a moment thought I was watching Fox News.......I wanted to through something at the was such absurd rubbish. Before the start of the war I told my sister who lives in Fla and who was swallowing the Bush line that going into Iraq would be like opening pandora's box.......My suggestion if you really want to know about a place is to read its my opinion if the general public had had knowledge of Iraq's history they would not have been fooled by their government

Someone should be held accountable for the manufactured lies along with Coercion set forth by the present administration . Most professionals are legally held to a higher standard, as they should be. Coercion is in fact a crime , but does the Democrats congress have the guts, heart and compassion to be the enforcing body of the crimes at hand? Obviously the department of justice will be of no help!!!

I lived in El Salvador during the civil war. The media coverage of Iraq has been similar to its 1980-1992 coverage of U.S. complicity in Salvadoran death squads, human rights abuses, secret prisons, the formation of a political party tied to the death squads (that has ruled the country since 1989), and of the US preference of a military victory. Shameful and complicit.

I Hope Moyers Will Do One on 9/11 Hero Willie Rodriguez's Abuse by the corporate media, as they did the 9/11 family members.

They trotted them out when they needed them for war propaganda, but now that the majority of them know we've been lied to about 9/11, they can't get a microphone. Fox'll dig up one that still believes in Bush once in a while but the majority who've learned the truth, can't get a media mic.

William Rodriguez was decorated by President Bush for his heroism in saving so many people and being the last man out on 9/11. HOWEVER, when the media interviewed him, they cut off his words JUST BEFORE HE SAID THERE WERE BOMB EXPLOSIONS IN THE BASEMENT BEFORE THE PLANE HIT ABOVE. In media report after media report they skillfully clip out this all important and inconvenient truth.

Why is the media doing this?

Did you know that the BBC's reporter in New York on 9/11, actually announced the collapse of WTC 7 (the Soloman Brothers Building) 23 MINUTES BEFORE IT ACTUALLY COLLAPSED, AND 23 MINUTES "BEFORE" ANYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE?

When confronted with the question, WHO TOLD YOU? The BBC refused to tell, and then claimed they had mysteriously "lost" all three archived footage of 9/11/2001, which by British law is held in three different locations.

There is something very wrong with American and British media. They try to systematically make you think that only "nuts" question the unbelievable official story of 9/11. This is false. Visit to read of nearly 100 high level military, intelligence, archetectural, and aeronautic experts . . . who agree we've been lied to about 9/11. Many saying the facts lead to the conclusion 9/11 was an inside job.

You can view a full feature length documentary on the physics of 9/11 by googling "9/11 Mysteries." You can also see the BBC's bizarre psychic abilities of 9/11 by youtubing "WTC 9/11 BBC".

I hope there will be an online version of this important documentary. As an American living in Scotland that would be one way for me to view it. Perhaps BBC could pick it up.

Bill Moyers is a credit to his profession and is always worth listening to. I hope the presentation gets the type of viewership it deserves.

Hugh Peebles
Peebles, Scotland

Even in the so-called USA, in the occupied territory of Maine, Bill Moyers was not aired on MPBN as scheduled. I called the station and was told that it was pre-empted.

I wonder how many other so-called NPR affiliates pre-empted the broadcast.

Jood again in Maine,

Perhaps age is a social handicap, I originated in the good old "roaring twenties", '23 to be exact, and my peer group were geographically knowledgeable, having had parents that survived the "Great War - To End All Wars". When my country was endangered by The Third Reich's conquest of Europe we established a draft (BY ONE VOTE) and before a draft could find me I enlisted in our Navy; I know what WAR is. I voted for Tom Dewey, who would turn our swords into plowshares and improve living conditions with improved home appliances. His Kansas (Pendergast sponsor) haberdashery failure "Give 'em Hell, Harry" Truman toured the nation, stopping at all whistle stops, to declare his intention to keep this nation strong with the military improvements that were required to win the last WAR this nation has known. Guess what we the people voted for? That is what we currently suffer with, a military/industrial complex that our other Kansan, accomplished military leader, "I Like Ike" Eisenhower warned us about. This complex of corporation control destroyed the people's concern for people by providing large salaries for military related manufacturing and "National Defense" interstate highways. Management discovered the money tool, available in abundance, and bought the mind and body of employees to the destruction of The National Labor Relation Act and any dignity that organized labor may have had. Politicians are no longer statesmen or women but tools of commercial interests, no longer responsible to an apathetic, made ignorant, constituency. The condition Bill Moyers describes is symptomatic of the educational failure of our public school system that does not promote reasoning and responsibility but installs robot responses to technological techniques - not knowledge. Bill Moyers or Lewis Lapham may contact me for further discussion. Somebody's god save the USA.

It should come as no surprise that when the main stream media hob knobs and rubs elbows with those in power that they will succumb to any enticement to get "the story" or get "the interview". Separation of press and politicians is as important as church and state. The press should report the facts as though the lives of the American people depend on it. Because freedom and democracy is at stake and we are losing it all to the "free press".

One of the biggest of the "Big Lies" about Iraq (and 911) is that "intel failures" were responsible in some way.

Clearly, there was a failure of both imagination and intelligence - just not the kind that spoken of. The failure is in our own diligence and skepticism in evaluating the BS our press, and especially the visual media put out, and holding the corporations and the paid shills they put on camera responsible for their lies.

Jim Pivonka,

Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

Words and Music by Harvey Rubens
Copyright © 2006



Verse 1:

I see men looking over their shoulder,
Running hard just trying to stay alive,
And they say that it's gonna get colder before it gets better.

At the time of the crime, who believed us?
We all took a fall on the ride,
When the powers that be had deceived us to leave us the debtor.


And who's watching over who's watching over you?
Tell me who's telling you what to do what to do?

Verse 2:

All the forces of war were compelling,
And blacker than Colin, the Knight,
And the lies they were telling, they sell in the name of their savior.

And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light,
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.


Verse 3:

I see men who are trying to squeeze us,
And taking whatever they can,
While they buy those who try to appease us with scraps from their table.

It gets harder each day to break even.
This wasn't a part of my plan.
Time is right to be fighting or leaving this tower of Babel.



Comments welcome:

Yup the Gulf of OIL incident coming right up !!

Oooops that would be the
GULF of OIL Incidents

Britain's Blair warns Iran to release seized sailors

PLEASE UNDERSTAND the Enterprise the Stand Alone Self Financing Super Secret Arm of the CIA and described by Bill Moyers SEE

http://video. videoplay? docid=3505348655 137118430

Well as for the OBSENITIES they remain LETTERS not Shock and Awe and Children's and Mommies and Daddy's, Granny's and Grandpa's bodies being shredded by 10,000 lb bombs and Gun Ship, SAW and the other BIG AND POWERFUL weapons in the arsenals of the antagonists.
I'll tell you what's OBSCENE

http://video. videoplay? docid=3505348655 137118430

look here

The Lie Factory

News: A Mother Jones Special Investigation
The inside story of how the Bush administration pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war.
By Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest
January/February 2004 Issue
Lie by Lie: The Mother Jones Iraq War Timeline (8/1/90 - 6/21/03)

In this timeline, we've assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the second installment of the timeline, with a focus on how the
war was lost in the first 100 days

Skinny wrote:
Seizure of British marines could be "Gulf of Tonkin" long yearned 4by warmongers,Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet

Ominous Signs Suggest Iran War Close

Seizure of British marines could be "Gulf of Tonkin" long yearned for by warmongers

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

As tensions surrounding Iran's seizure of 15 British navy personnel continue to build, ominous signs that war is nearing give an indication that this could be the new "Gulf of Tonkin" Bush and Blair have long yearned for to justify air strikes on Iran.

The U.S. has escalated war games in the area, "The manoeuvres involve the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, marking the first time the two strike groups have operated in a joint exercise under the US Navy's Fifth Fleet," reports the AFP.

Russian news outlets are reporting that such activity represents, "Heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," that closely resembles the situation immediately before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has given the Iranians just days to return the marines safely before harsher steps are taken.

It's difficult to know who to trust concerning exactly whose waters the marines were in, Iraq's or Iran's, when Ahmadinejad' s slender grip on power survives only by feeding his own population war propaganda, while Bush and Blair have become the very iconography of deceit in the modern age.

A high ranking Iraqi official expressed his surprise that British forces were even operating in the area.

Brigadier-General Hakim Jassim, commander of Iraq's territorial waters, told the BBC: "Usually there is no presence of British forces in that area, so we were surprised and we wondered whether the British forces were inside Iraqi waters or inside Iranian regional waters."

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true storyget Terror Storm! behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11,
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------

Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, slammed the spin and rhetoric Tony Blair has cased the crisis in, pointing out that the Royal Navy boarded the ships not to conduct inspections on weapons smuggling, but to look for tax evaders.

"In international law the Iranian government were not out of order in detaining foreign military personnel in waters to which they have a legitimate claim," said Murray, adding "For the Royal Navy, to be interdicting shipping within the twelve mile limit of territorial seas in a region they know full well is subject to maritime boundary dispute, is unnecessarily provocative. "

What seems to be unfolding are similar circumstances that led to the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon last summer, where two Israeli soldiers were "kidnapped" after they had crossed the border into Lebanese territory.

It seems highly unlikely that the Iranians would risk further international condemnation by kidnapping British marines in Iraqi waters, but whatever the truth, the fact remains that the "coalition of the killing" are no strangers to violating international rules defining sovereignty and kidnapping foreign nationals for political gain.

Bush has green-lighted the CIA policy of globe-hopping to snatch terror suspects off the streets of foreign countries, the most high profile case being Islamic cleric Abu Omar in Milan in 2003.

On January 11, U.S. military forces raided an Iranian consulate in Arbil and detained five Iranian officials who are still prisoners to this day.

Bush and Blair's denouncements of Iran's actions are accompanied by more than a whiff of hypocrisy and if this situation continues to escalate it may become the "Gulf of Tonkin" they have long yearned for to justify ordering air strikes against Ahmadinejad' s nuclear and military facilities.

Comments (47) | Trackback

Skinny wrote: John Bolton: Bush never said Saddam was 'imminent threat'

David Edwards and Josh Catone John_Bolton_ Bush_never_ said_Saddam_ 0325.html Published: Sunday March 25, 2007

Print This Email This

Former ambassador to the UN John Bolton on CNN's Late Edition today made the case that, over four years into the Iraq war, removing Saddam Hussein was "unquestionably" the right thing to do, even though he did not turn out to have the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that formed the basis for the Bush administration' s case for going to war.

"[Saddam Hussein] and his regime were the threat to international peace and security. The president never made the argument that he constituted an imminent threat," Bolton said.

However, on more than one occasion, administration officials used the term "imminent threat" to describe Iraq in the run up to the war.

"This is about imminent threat," said then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan on February 10, 2003.

"When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat?
Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" was Donald Rumsfeld's message in November 2002, implying that Iraq would need to attack the US to become more of an immediate threat than it was.

Vice President Dick Cheney in August 2002 used the similar term "mortal threat" saying, "What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

Denying that the White House used the specific nomenclature "imminent threat" is a common defense of Bush administration officials.

In 2004, then-Director of the CIA George Tenet defended his organization' s prewar estimates of Saddam Hussein's military might by saying, "They never said there was an imminent threat."

A video clip of Bolton appearing on CNN's Late Edition follows:

Sorry for being the devils advocate here. I appreciate your David Swanson article but like so many left wing publications it tends to fall back on the very same types of exaggerations we accuse the Bush White House an press from promoting.

One case for example; you quote Jonathan Landay as saying "You need tens of thousands of machines called 'centrifuges' to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon." Really? I'm obviously not a nuclear scientist but if I recall correctly it only takes a few dozen.

Overall this article, well intended as it is, tends to wander in spite of it's enthusiasm. It is easy to get carried away and lose credibility. My motive here is not to attack your effort, but to point out that we are in very deep shit here and there is no time for amateur hour. Writers and politicians for our side more than ever need to be absolutely pure and well informed if we are to win this fight. America is beginning to listening to us for a change.

P.S. Thanks for not misspelling 'nuclear'; something our own president, the man with his finger in the button, still can't do.

but that doesn't stop you from taking your own views and recollections as authoritative. And please learn what a devil's advocate is -- it implies that you don't actually hold the views you are presenting.

Why on earth didn't Bill Moyers include the video clip of Saddam Hussein just after the tragedy of 9/11--that clip showing Saddam Hussein laughing, raising his gun in the air to shoot it, revelling in the falling twin towers--or was that a lie too?

I know of soldiers now fighting in Iraq who decided to enlist because of that clip, hoping that they could help topple the only visible regime that supported the massacre of 3,000 Americans.

Voice overs of that particular clip by the news media, made it appear that Saddam Hussein was ecstatic about the downing of the Twin Towers, and therefore aligned, and even implicity conspiring with Al-kaida.

Please respond,

Carol Green
Teacher, Eureka, CA

Why not be fair and balanced? Why not also list all the statements leading up to the war made by Democrats.

I am not expert on goverment, but it seems to me that the senate over sight committee on intelligence would see raw intelligence just as easily as the president does. So what about all the Democrats on that committee? If the intelligence was altered to push the war, should not they have known?

Johh Kerry sits on that committee.

It seems all to easy to just pick the people you do not like, then go and track what they said. Why not do the same for maybe Hillary Clinton also? But no, the liberal media would never do that!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.