Jon Stewart has put together a nice montage of Democrats asking the Shrub “where the heck are the WMDs?”
These clips are from the June 9, 2003 Daily Show.
Democrats Ask About WMDs (Small – 8 MB)
Democrats Ask About WMDs (Hi-Res – 102 MB)
The Daily Show (the best news on television).
Here is a list of the serial lying from the Bush Regime about Iraq, including links to a cross section of all the news sources.
It’s nowhere near a complete list, and you probably already knew about most of these lies, but its a great list to send any annoying dittohead who buys into this fake war.
Best,
Kelley Kramer
USA lied about Iraq’s weapons
By Jonathan Tisdall for the Aftenposten English Web Desk.
A US-based Norwegian weapons inspector accuses the USA and Secretary of State Colin Powell with providing the United Nations Security Council with incorrect and misleading information about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), newspaper Dagbladet reports…
Siljeholm told Dagbladet that Colin Powell’s report to the Security Council on how Iraq camouflaged their WMD program was full of holes.
“Much of what he said was wrong. It did not match up at all with our information. The entire speech was misleading,” Siljeholm said.
Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: “Lie is a strong word – but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq’s nuclear program was simply incorrect,” Siljeholm said.
“We received much incomplete and poor intelligence information from the Americans, and our cooperation developed accordingly. Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense. From what I have seen they are going to war on very little,” Siljeholm told Dagbladet.
Colin Powell has spoken up about the onslaught of allegations that he (along with the rest of the Shrub Administration) lied to Congress and the U.N. and the American People and the rest of the world about having indisputable evidence of Sadaam’s WMDs.
He’s spoken up to say, in a nutshell, “Did not! You can take my word for it.”
We’re not taking your word for anything Colin. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place. Cough up with the evidence or forget it. Put up or shut up.
And this doesn’t count (shown within context below) “Iraq used these weapons against Iran in the late ’80s” — what does having weapons in the late 80’s have to do with having them last February? You told us that he had them THIS YEAR. Remember? That’s why we had to go in to protect ourselves and the rest of the world…remember?
And what’s this stuff about not using the information about buying uranium from Niger in his speech? I thought he absolutely used that evidence in one of his U.N. speeches.
You guys want to help me clarify this one way or the other? (Whether or not he used the Niger evidence in his U.N. speech.)
Update 11:13 am PST – Readers have refreshed my memory that it was the Shrub that used the Niger evidence in his January speech, not Colin who used it in one of his U.N. speeches.
So that means tha the “evidence” was credible enough for our Shrub of a “president” to use in one of his State of the Union addresses, but it wasn’t credible enough for the Secretary of State who works for him to use it in one of his own speeches to the U.N. (?)
Still putting together docs/video/anything I can find to clarify the facts.
Thanks for your help on this guys. — lisa
Powell Defends Intelligence on Suspected Iraq Arms
By Arshad Mohammed for FindLaw.
Speaking in Rome, Powell said he thought the evidence that Iraq had continued to develop such weapons was “overwhelming.”
“There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It wasn’t a figment of anyone’s imagination. Iraq used these weapons against Iran in the late ’80s,” Powell said. “There is no question, there is no debate here.”
“There was no doubt in my mind as I went through the intelligence and as I prepared myself for the (Feb. 5) briefing … that the evidence was overwhelming that they had continued to develop these programs,” he added…
Powell told reporters as he flew to Egypt he chose not to cite intelligence suggesting Iraq tried to buy “yellow cake” uranium from Niger — quoted by other U.S. officials but later found by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be based partly on forged documents — because he felt there was insufficient substantiation.
“Not that I thought it was untrue, it’s just that I didn’t think it was solid enough for the kind of presentation I had to give,” Powell said. “It turned out to be untrue. That happens a lot in the intelligence business.”
Missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Is Lying About The Reason For War An Impeachable Offense?
By John W. Dean for FindLaw.
In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed…this Administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, it was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush’s doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be “a high crime” under the Constitution’s impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony “to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.”
Bush Lied and Soldiers Died
By Wayne Francis for t r u t h o u t.
Legions of foreign intelligence agencies, from China to France to Russia to Germany, reported that Iraq was no threat, had no terrorists, and most importantly had no weapons of mass destruction. Understandably, the leaders of these countries opposed the war, and the citizens protested in the streets. It appears the Bush administration was well aware of these facts, but proceeded to use
Standard Operating Procedure
By Paul Krugman for The NY Times.
The mystery of Iraq’s missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration “grossly manipulated intelligence” about W.M.D.’s…
In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline “Lie Another Day.” The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: “The government is seen as having `spun’ the threat from Saddam’s weapons just as it spins everything else.”
Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though “spin” is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which
Oh, ok. That quote was his reaction to a “draft” and not the final report.
(Theoretically the report was transformed accordingly into something Powell could stomach before reading it to the world.)
Powell was under pressure to use shaky intelligence on Iraq: report
According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit.”
I hate arguments about impeaching the Shrub “like we impeached Clinton” because I think the Clinton impeachment was a total crock and you can’t even compare lying to a political witchhunt about a sexual affair to the act of lying to the American Government, American Public, and the rest of the World about why the military invasion of a foreign country is necessary. That said. This editorial contains an interesting perspective.
We Used To Impeach Liars
By William Rivers Pitt for T r u t h o u t.
The case for war against Iraq has not been made. This is a fact. It is doubtful in the extreme that Saddam Hussein has retained any functional aspect of the chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons programs so thoroughly dismantled by the United Nations weapons inspectors who worked tirelessly in Iraq for seven years. This is also a fact.
This was a straightforward argument, set against stern and unrelenting prophesies of doom from Bush administration officials, and from Bush himself. I can tell you, as the writer, that it was a tough sell. The facts contained in the book were absolutely accurate, as has been proven in the aftermath of war, but Americans are funny. They fall for Hitler’s maxim on lies over and over again: “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Over and over and over and over and over again, the American people were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction practically falling out of his ears. The American people were told that Hussein was giving away these weapons to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda the way you and I might give away birthday presents.
Feast for a moment, on this brief timeline:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
– Dick Cheney, August 26 2002
“If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.”
– Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002
“We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
– Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003
“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.”
– Colin Powell, February 5 2003
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.”
– Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003
“There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”
– Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003
“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.”
– Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003
“I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.”
– Ari Fleischer, April 10 2003
“There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.”
– Donald Rumsfeld, April 25 2003
“I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.”
– Colin Powell, May 4 2003