"VTR" <vexjorge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:KfCdnfm48NCuDZrVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Read more of William Rivers Pitt's columns
> Remember: They Are Liars
> By William Rivers Pitt
> t r u t h o u t | Columnist Tuesday 08 April 2008
>
> No one is such a liar as the indignant man. - Friedrich Nietzsche
>
> George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz,
> Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings
> and a revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon,
> have been making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.
>
> They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax,
> "enough to kill several million people," according to a page on the
> White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.
>
> They lied.
If someone know they did not have 26,000 liters of anthrax, that is a lie.
Can this writer prove that they knew that Iraq did not have 26,000 liters
of
antrax?
>
> They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum
> toxin.
>
> They lied.
Same question....
>
> They claimed Iraq was in possession of 500 tons, which equals
> 1,000,000 pounds, of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
>
> They lied.
Same question.
>
> They claimed Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions
> capable of delivering these agents.
Ah, but they did have that capability. The question is did they know that
they did not have that capability, at the time they made the statement.
>
> They lied.
>
> They claimed Iraq was in possession of several mobile biological
> weapons labs.
>
> They lied.
The news re****ts at the time of the discovery indicated they "thought"
they
had discovered several mobile biological labs. More evanluation indicated
what they thought they found, were not what they thought they found. So,
by definition that is not a lie, unless you can prove, that they knew that
what they found were not mobile biological labs.
>
> They claimed Iraq was operating an "advanced" nuclear weapons
> program.
>
> They lied.
That is seems to me depends on the definition of what is a "advanced"
nuclear weapons program. What is the definition of what is an "advanced"
nulcear weapons program?
>
> They claimed Iraq had been seeking "significant quantities" of
> uranium from Africa for use in this "advanced" nuclear weapons
> program.
They "thought" that Iraq was doing just that, that is not a lie....
Unless
of course you can prove that they knew that Iraq was not seeking
"significant quantities" of uranium for Africa.
>
> They lied.
>
> They claimed Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes
> "suitable for nuclear weapons."
>
> They lied.
No, they thought that is what Iraq was attempting to do. So, once again,
unless you can prove that the knew that they were not trying to make the
purchases, it is not a lie.
>
> They claimed America needed to invade, overthrow and occupy Iraq
> in order to remove this menace from our world. "It would take just
> one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country," went
> the White House line, "to bring a day of horror like none we have
> ever known."
>
> They lied.
No, they did not lie. How many countries believed that Iraq was not a
threat? This was a country that had a war with Iran, and invaded Kuwait.
So, they already demonstrated that they are a country you cannot trust.
>
> "Simply stated," said Dick Cheney in August of 2002, "there is no
> doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
>
> Liar.
Only if he knew that they did not have such weapons, and then it would be
a
lie. Can the writer prove that he knew that what he said was not the
truth?
>
> "Right now," said George W. Bush in September of 2002, "Iraq is
> expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production
> of nuclear weapons."
>
> Liar.
Offer some proof that they were not doing that.
>
> "We know for a fact," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
> in January of 2003, "that there are weapons there."
>
> Liar.
Note that the quote did not use the word Weapons of Mass Destruction, it
used the word "weapons". Every country has weapons, so it is not a lie.
>
> "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of
> mass destruction," said Colin Powell in February of 2003, "is
> determined to make more."
>
> Liar.
We know that Saddam did have WMD's. If he was not interested in having
such
a capability, he could have followed the lead of South Africa, and then
there would have been no doubt that he did not want to have WMD'S. He
could
have done that, but he did not, which brings into question whehter he was
honest about disarming. And he certainly did not help the situation by
making the job of the insepctor easier. He created his own problem with
trust when he made the job of the inspector more difficult.
>
> "We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld in March of 2003.
> "They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, south,
> west and north somewhat."
>
> Liar.
No, he believed that is where they were. Apparently he was wrong, but it
is
not a lie, if you believed that what you said was the truth, albiet
incorrect....
>
> "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about," said Paul
> Wolfowitz in March of 2003. "Like the people of France in the 1940s,
> they view us as their hoped-for liberator."
>
> Liar.
No, not a lie. Most Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam.... It is just
that some Iraqis, with a lot of help from countries bordering Iraq, and a
lot of foriegners who do not want to see us succeed.
>
> "No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents
> were," said Condoleezza Rice in June of 2003, "where they were
> stored."
>
> Liar.
Did we know where they were stored? If we did, then we were wrong, which
again is not a lie.
>
> "I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction
> inside this country," said Gen. Tommy Franks in April of 2003.
> "Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in
> one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether
> contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with
> will tell us, 'Oh, well, there's actually another site,' and we'll
> find it there, I'm not sure."
>
> Wrong.
Wrong but not a lie, which is the theme of this posting.
>
> "Before the war," said Gen. Michael Hagee in May of 2003, "there's
> no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
> destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found.
> I still expect them to be found."
>
> Wrong.
Wrong but not a lie....
>
> "Given time," said Gen. Richard Myers in May of 2003, "given the
> number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident
> that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."
>
> Wrong.
Wrong, but not a lie....
>
> "Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do,"
> said Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton in May of 2003, "because I think there's
> a lot of information out there."
>
> Wrong.
Wrong, but not a lie....
>
> Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, is about to
> give testimony before the Senate regarding the current state of
> affairs in that battle-savaged country. He is a political general,
> one of many America has seen and heard over the last five years,
> one who would leap **** from the Capitol dome before telling the
> real truth about matters in Iraq ... or who would speak using words
> fed to him by liars, and thus be wrong.
>
> Remember: they lie. They all lie, from the top man down to the
> bottom. If their lips are moving, a lie is unfolding. If they say
> water is wet, get into the shower to make sure.
>
> They lie.
>
> Period.
>
> End of file.
>
It boils down to a very simple question, which I ask you to answer. Will
you answer the question? The question is, is success in Iraq im****tant or
not im****tant, and if it is not im****tant, why is it not im****tant? And
if
you believe it is not im****tant, is that an opinion shared by any of the
candidates who want to be our next President?
|
