fayfreethinkers.com

Bush Administration Claims vs. The Facts

The Bush administration made a series of claims prior to the Iraq War, each intended to support the idea that Saddam Hussein was a grave and imminent threat. None of these claims were true.

The epilogue of the film, LEADING TO WAR, presents refutations to eight of these claims.

Here, each of these claims is examined in detail, using government and press reports, to show how the Bush administration presented intelligence to support these claims, despite the fact that behind closed doors Bush officials knew this intelligence to be disputed or even false.

Eight Pre-War Claims Refuted:

• No weapons of mass destruction of any kind were found in Iraq.

• No mobile biological weapons labs were found in Iraq.

• Iraq did not seek to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa.

• The aluminum tubes were not suitable for nuclear weapons development.

• Mohamed Atta, the lead 9/11 hijacker, did not meet with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.

• Iraq did not provide chemical weapons training to al-Qaeda.

• There was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

• The implication that Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11 was untrue.

See the website, the movie and the links backing up each claim, here:

leadingtowar.com

Poor Galt and Hillwilllose probably believed each of those myths. They probably watch FAUX NEWS.

The media was complicit in helping Bush push for the Iraq invasion.

Here, John "Rick" MacArthur, publisher and president of Harper's magazine and an early critic of the drive to invade Iraq, says the media was too docile.

=================
The journalistic heroes here are not the journalists. It's people like (former U.N. weapons inspector) Scott Ritter. And Ritter was the easiest source to quote at the time. What I kept saying to people at the time was if there's one Scott Ritter out there screaming his head off on talk radio and cable TV, then there are twenty other Scott Ritters types who are afraid to talk on the record but you can still talk to. If you were a Nervous Nelly sort of reporter and you wanted more official types to back up the sort of things he was saying, all you had to look was for them. I'm thinking of sources like [former U.S. weapons inspector] David Albright who had plenty to say.

The two great reporters for Knight-Ridder, Jonathan Landy and Warren Strobel, were getting it right but nobody was paying attention. I mean, all the editorials in the papers these guys were working for weren't paying any attention to what their own reporters were saying. Whoever wrote the editorials looked like they weren't reading their own newspapers. Everything those two reporters had been publishing up to then was contradicting everything Bush had been saying.

How easy or difficult was it, in your view, for the average interested citizen in 2002 to find out what was going on in Iraq by reading the press?

It was easy to follow if you paid attention to what people like those at Knight-Ridder were saying. The stuff I was saying was a little harder to find. I was on some cable TV shows and wrote some opinion pieces early on. A piece I wrote for the Providence Journal was, I think, the first longish piece calling Bush a liar on this issue.

But you also had the Bush family track record of making stuff up about the first Gulf War, which I reported on in my book, The Second Front. You knew there was a history of making things up and the Bushes were not reliable on this and neither was the reporting on what they said. There was a whole history of propaganda with them.

See here.

I know how to save the Republic from this failure!!

I'm going to send all this to L.V. Ash.

He's a hero in all things Bushlie. C'mon L.V. Where you hiding?

.