Where are the Lies?

2007-4-19 16:10:00

One of the reasons I have advised members to not post articles about the war (unless it is on topic) is there is so much controversy over it as well as misinformation that if I were to comment on them, like Susan's article, for instance, it would distract us for over a month in dealing with the fallout.

Since this post was made I will make just several short comments.

First, the documentary was put together by Bill Moyers who has always hated Bush and the Republicans in general so you know there will be a lot of distortion and bias involved.

The best example of a lie from Bush they can find is the following:

"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."

Let us examine these statements:

  1. "Iraq is part of a war on terror."

At the time Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers 20,000 dollars (USD) each for sending their sons to bomb innocent civilians in Israel. If that isn't a part of the war on terror I do not know what is.

There is a lot of evidence that he did cooperate with al Qaeda and other terrorists in an effort to hurt the United States. In addition to this he used his influence and oil to turn Russia, Germany and France against us.

In addition he was making deals with North Korea for missiles and supported their nuclear program. There's a good chance he would have been their first nuclear customer.

  1. "It's a country that trains terrorists."

See the interview at the end of the post for a view supporting this.

  1. "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country."

It is an absolute fact that he did have weapons of mass destruction in the past and after the first Gulf War it was found that his atomic bomb project was further ahead than was thought to be the case.

There is a lot of evidence that I do not have time to present that the Russians with cooperation from France and Germany helped Saddam Hussein move the WMDs just before the war for these three nations illegally supplied many components and did not want to be exposed. Plus they wanted to embarrass the United States.

Even if Bush was wrong there is no evidence he was lying. A mistake is not a lie.

Consider this. What in the world could be Bush's motive to lie about the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Before the war his ratings were around 80 percent approving. It is insane to accuse him of going to Iraq for political gain when there was nothing to gain. His ratings couldn't get any higher.

Secondly, why would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others tell the world they are going after Saddam Hussein's WMD if they knew there were none? If they really knew there were no weapons then they also knew they would look like fools shortly after the invasion.

Why would they go after Saddam Hussein's WMD when they knew that within months they would look like fools in the eyes of the world?

I certainly wouldn't have done this even if I was the greatest liar on the face of the earth.

A real liar designs his lies so he will look good - yet the media tells us that Bush lied knowing the lie was going to destroy him.

Example:  Jake has a dog that bites. His girlfriend comes over and wants to pet him. She asks Jake,  "Does your dog bite."  He says, "No."

She pets Jake's dog, and the dog bites her hand.

Would anyone in the real world tell such a lie that is sure to backfire on him, cause loss and make him look like an SOB? No, it makes no sense that Jake would tell a lie that will cause him to lose his girlfriend he wants to keep.

Even so, if Bush was wrong about the WMD he obviously made a mistake rather than telling a boldface lie for a liar uses a lie to his advantage, not to willingly destroy himself.

Interview Exploring Probable Links Between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein

CBN.com - A new book called Losing Bin Laden reveals links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as well as missed opportunities that were presented to former President Clinton to capture Osama bin Laden. Gordon Robertson spoke with the book's author, investigative journalist Richard Miniter, about those topics, and about where bin Laden might be hiding today.

GORDON ROBERTSON:  Joining us now from Washington D.C. is investigative journalist and author Richard Miniter. He's recently been to Iraq, and he's written a new book called Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror. Richard, welcome to The 700 Club.


ROBERTSON:  You and many others have found multiple links between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden. Why is this not being reported?

MINITER:  Well, there's a pack mentality that takes over the mainstream media, and they want to decide what we hear and what we see, and not tell us things that might somehow disturb us. That's one thing. Another thing is, and this is something really worrisome, is the major newspapers, The New York Times, The Washington Post especially, have only one or two correspondents that handle intelligence issues. They have become the captive of their sources. If they have a very good source at the CIA, they're not going to give that person up, and they end up taking on subtly the views of that one or two sources at the CIA or at the State Department. So really what the newspapers especially should do, is have multiple intelligence reporters with competing sources. Otherwise they end up serving as the mouthpiece of the CIA or State Department bureaucracy. And the bureaucracies of the two agencies are often at great variance with the President of the United States.

ROBERTSON:  What are the links? Your book goes into the details. One thing that struck me is your point that it's tough to run a global terror network without state sponsorship. You don't have the funds necessary to make it all happen unless you've got a state behind you. What are the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein?

MINITER:  What's interesting is that I've uncovered links that are not even listed in Doug Feith's memo leaked to The Weekly Standard. One of the things it appears Iraq was doing, had been doing for more than a decade, was using its embassies around the world to coordinate terror attacks with Al Qaeda and other terror organizations. Sometimes those embassies were also used as safe houses.

But most startlingly of all, in 1996, the head of Iraqi intelligence left Iraq, which is very rare, and flew to Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, and there he met with Osama bin Laden. And this is confirmed by multiple sources. And when I was in Sudan last year, I met with the head of the Sudanese intelligence and asked him about this meeting, and he confirmed it and offered to provide photographs of the head of Iraqi intelligence meeting with Osama bin Laden. That was the climax of series of meetings between Iraqi intelligence, going back to 1993, climaxing in 1996 in what appears to be a full partnership.

So we see financial links. We see training links where Abu Zarqawi, who was the chemical weapons guy at Al Qaeda, had visited and stayed in Iraq a number of times. And after the United States liberated Afghanistan, and after the bloody battle of Tora Bora he fled to Baghdad where he received medical treatment for his wounds, he apparently received money and a place to live for a period of time in order to recover and to reconstitute part of his organization.

So state sponsorship of terrorism is a problem. Al Qaeda is backed not only by Iraq, but apparently by Iran, and also by extortion payments from other Arab sheiks. But Iraq was a primary source of funds and technical expertise to help commit global terrorism with Al Qaeda.

ROBERTSON:  There also seems to be a training ground just outside of Baghdad where there was a Boeing jet, a commercial airliner, that was apparently used for training of hijackers?

MINITER:  That's absolutely right Gordon. It's called Salmon Pak, it's southeast of Baghdad about 40 miles. And they had an entire full-scale actual Boeing 747. That's what they used as a school for teaching hijacking. One of the things they taught was not to hijack with guns, but to hijack with items that you ordinarily find on board, such as a knife in the first class cabin, or a mop handle. Anything that can be used that would normally be on a plane that can be turned into a weapon, they trained to turn it into a weapon to dominate the plane.

We saw similar techniques used on September 11th. No one has been able to prove conclusively that the hijackers of 9/11 trained at Salmon Pak, but it is possible because a number of Iraqi sources have stepped forward, including the former commander of the Salmon Pak training camp, who said Al Qaeda trained there. So if the hijackers of 9/11 themselves didn't train there, their commanders or their trainers probably did.