Truth or crap???

The Individualist: Why There Were No WMDs
Posted by Joe Rivett on 06.21.2006

Eight reasons why there were no WMDs found in Iraq explained in the simplest
of terms...

There are probably many versions of this column on why there were no WMDs.
However, many are complex and do not break it down in a quick and easy way
to understand. Thus, I will attempt to explain why there were no WMDs in
Iraq despite what the US government claimed.

Reason #1 - Some of our main intelligence came from an Egyptian thug who was
tortured. If someone is torturing you for information that you have no idea
about, what do you do? You lie. He lied and now that the war is over, this
man has (no surprise) recanted his story.

Reason #2 - We had zero CIA intelligence agents in Iraq. Now one would think
that if we were going to go to war with a country, we would find some Arab
looking agents and send them on a mission. Nope.

Reason #3 - Remember the Bill O'Reilly defense that the Germans thought
Saddam had weapons? The German intelligence had one man claim there were
weapons, only one man. Did the US contact this one man? Nope.

Reason #4 - In 2002, Joseph Wilson was sent to Africa on a mission to see if
the country Niger sold Saddam the "yellow cake" substance that can be used
to kill people. Joseph informed the CIA that he did not find any evidence.
However, in 2003 during the State of the Union Address, President Bush made
the claim that Niger sent Saddam uranium enriching products. We now know
that George Tenet who knew that claim was bogus never looked at the
president's speech nor did anyone in the CIA look at it to make sure it was
accurate.

After the speech, Joseph Wilson wrote an article for the New York Times
stating that Niger was never involved with Iraq. *** Cheney and his Chief
of Staff "Scooter" Libby upset by the news decided to out Wilson's wife
Valerie Plame, who was an undercover CIA agent. This of course is against
the law as Scooter Libby is finding out.

Reason #5 - Muhammad Atta never had any contact with Iraq. One of the claims
put forth by the Vice President why the US should go to war with Iraq
because he believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda were linked. He used a man named
Muhammad Atta, an Al Qaeda terrorist that allegedly met with Saddam's men
after 9/11. The problem for *** was the CIA found out this was false and
that there was no meeting. Nevertheless, *** continued to insist that
Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked on Meet the Press AFTER he knew the CIA
found no evidence.

Reason #6 - George Tenet and Colin Powell were team players. George Tenet
knew and told the president that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11.
However, Bush is the type of guy that does not like arguments and prefers to
work with people that share his worldview. Thus, Tenet knew he had to try
his very hardest to find any shred of WMD evidence in Iraq. This is what
probably led to the famous "slam dunk" comment of WMDs being in Iraq. Yet,
if Bush was more open to dissent, Tenet may have never exaggerated the
claim. Powell, on the other hand, is a military guy. And although he had his
doubts and questions about the war, he wanted to support his
commander-in-chief instead of embarrassing him by resigning.

Reason #7 - Before Powell resigned after Bush's reelection, he had to
deliver a speech to the United Nations about the weapons Saddam Hussein
allegedly possessed. Now one would think the CIA or Colin Powell wrote the
speech. Nope. The speech was written by: you guessed it, Scooter Libby.

Reason #8 - Wolfowitz admitted to Vanity Fair that the Weapons argument was
just an excuse for war, what the administration really wanted was to spread
democracy. This makes sense because the Neo Cons rightly believe that the
more democracies there are the more peace and trade flourishes.
Unfortunately, the Neo Cons prefer war over the covert or soft power the US
has in spreading democracy.

After viewing these eight reasons, I smell something called Bull***. It is
now all beginning to make sense. I can see why some were opposed to the new
CIA chief being from the military.

It appears that the Bush Administration is weakening the power of the CIA,
which it has very little control of. Instead, they are strengthening the
power of the Pentagon.

So where did I find all of this intelligence and when did this all start to
click and like a puzzle come together? It's simple, I watched PBS, more
specifically Frontline. PBS showed a ninety minute documentary on the power
struggle between the CIA and *** Cheney in the lead up to the Iraq War. The
program did a very excellent job in breaking down the news. So I asked
myself, how come typical news programs do not have this ability.

I thought about it and I realized something I learned from watching the
movie Good Night and Good Luck earlier in the day. After watching an anchor
man take down Senator McCarthy by rigidly explaining facts and finding out
lies told by McCarthy I realized why ratings are low for news. News is
boring. The news has two problems, either it is boring because they are
obsessed about giving equal time to issues and people, and/or they are so
one-sided that it isn't even worth watching. Newsmakers need to take a stand
but make sure that their stand is not ideological but correct and based on
facts. That is what the PBS show Frontline did and I found it informative
and interesting.

This leads to the reason why the US went to war with Iraq. The American
people were uninformed. I don't blame the media because I'm not convinced
most Americans will watch Frontline when Last Comic Standing is on.
Unfortunately, Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman are more entertaining than
the Jim Lehrer Newshour or the BBC. As Robert Murrow stated after exposing
McCarthy, television has the power to enlighten us and it also has the power
to make us stupid. I think stupid is winning.



--
I've got a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a
weasel." ---
Blackadder


.