Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Although the inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam did now allow them to visit all the places they wanted. They were often delayed, apparently with the intention of removing evidence before they got there. Recent testimony says that Saddam himself believed that he actually possessed the weapons, and his advisers were too scared to tell him otherwise.
That, I believe, is why the Times ignored the quote. It's false on its surface; like Saddam, Mr. Bush's advisers tell him what he wants to hear. But there is some truth to it a bit deeper: the inspectors weren't able to state conclusively that the weapons were gone, and Saddam was acting suspiciously. Terrible justification for a war, and Bush has made the case badly before and since, but I understand why the NYT would have bigger fish to fry in that press conference.
Anyone with a brain, and a little knowledge of PNAC, can tell you exactly why they invaded Iraq: They wanted a base of operations in the M.E. to protect the dwindling oil resources and they wanted to set-up a democracy that would spread like wildfire to Iran and other countries. High falutin' ideas from such a simple bunch, ey? They had visions of MacArthur writing the new Japanese Constitution on yellow legal notebook paper. It all seemed so easy then.
Here's the problem - unlike MacArthur, we're trying to spread a system in which we do not ourselves believe. Look at what the republicans did to Clinton when they didn't like the results of the presidential election. Look at what they did to Chavez when they didn't like the results of those elections. We all know the CIA manipulates democratic systems to force the results they want, regardless of the Party in charge. They game the system because they don't trust it. Who among us does not blanche at the thought of Iraqs electing a sharia based government complete with laws against women and other religions?
They also don't trust We the People. They can't tell us what they're really up to and they lie to us like we were a doormat fishwife. And we, with stars in our eyes, either accept the lies or ignore them.
Why would we expect anyone else to trust democracy if we don't?
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Senate intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas repeated the Saddam-refused-inspections lie:
"But, in regards to Saddam Hussein, if in fact he didn't have them, why on earth didn't he let the U.N. inspectors in and avoid the war? That is a real puzzlement to me."
This is the same senator who refuses to investigate the illegal warrantless spying on Americans by this president.
Blitzer, of course, let this slide by without challenge. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/25/le.00.html)
It should be noted that this press continues to carry water for this president even after the president attacks them for the bad news out of Iraq. Contemptible.
Americans "don't care" because Americans can't do anything about it short of taking to the streets with pitch forks and torches, dragging these bastards, republican and democrats alike, putting them and their families up against a wall and shooting them. we've a ways to go before we'll be willing to do that. Even then we'd have to contend with our mercenary military.
As Gene DeVaux points out, Bush's desire to "take out Saddam" was clear in early 2001, as pointed out in Clarke's and O'Neil's books. Problem is, most Christo-fascists who blindly follow their Dear Leader can't read, so these fine works are merely preaching to the converted or literate.
Well, not those of us *here* maybe...
Too many blind being led by the blind. Sadly the electoral process has been dumbed down to the equivalent of a Student Body President vote where the most "popular" wins. Gore was "boooring" but Bush was "a fun guy you'd wanna share a beer with". Forget about who has the intelligence, foresight and ability to manage the country... ugh!
Not giving up hope for better days, but man, this shit has been disheartening! Yes, keep letting the lies be known, thanks!
Does the phrase "deny inspectors" mean deny them entry into the country? If so, there would be some truth to the premise of your piece. Or, does it mean to deny inspectors access to some key sites in Iraq. This may, in fact, have been the case at times. Or does it mean to deny inspectors information about Iraq’s research and development activities from which the inspectors could draw conclusions regarding the existence (or nonexistence) of a WMD program. This was almost certainly the case. To call it a “bald-faced lie” is misleading at best.
JCH - I don't get it, why are the presidents lies defended over and over again? There is no question what's meant with "chose to deny". The president clearly stated "we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in". He is not expressing himself badly, he knows what he wants to convey with his statements. He knows what his supporters as well as his opponents understand when he makes that claim. He is not that stupid.
I felt sick listening to that press conference on NPR. The White House press corps, chuckling at every lame attempt at humoring them that comes out of the president's mouth, seems to pride itself that they are finally asking "tough questions." But the only real tough questions came from Helen Thomas, and the answer she was given was a spew of bullshit. I am not an expert on these matters, but when Bush told his like about the weapons inspectors, I was screaming at my radio. Given that no reporter is allowed a follow-up question, why didn't someone back Thomas up and ask one? Why didn't someone ask the president if he'd ever heard of Hans Blix? Are they all so intent on asking their own pre-decided question that they can't see an opening and run with it?
Afterwards, the main story the media told about the conference was that Bush seemed to enjoy the "spirited debate," when actually he sounded petulant and pissy. Bush had also said, indirectly, that the troops would be in Iraq in 2008 and beyond, and this was seen as a newsflash to the dimwits with microphones.
The press is incompetent, which is frightening enough, but what is really terrifying is that it honestly seems to think it's doing a good job. It is like President Bush in that regard.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
