PDA

View Full Version : Doco claims that US knew Saddam was disarmed




Pinto
Sep 24, 2003, 11:53 PM
link (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13434081_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_page.html)
EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. "The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

2 months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."..

..In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."..

..At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London.

An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.

CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.

On that day, Bush signed a top- secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."

The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."


I'm looking forward to seeing the doco if it gets picked up by NZ television



zimv20
Sep 25, 2003, 01:04 AM
if there's even a shred of truth to this, bush should be impeached and removed from office.

then sent to the hague for war crimes.

Zaid
Sep 25, 2003, 04:19 AM
Well Blair and his govt have already lost a huge amount of credibility.

If ( a very big if) this is true, what exactly did Blair get out of it in order to get him to go along? I mean its not as if British companies have gained much from the war.

toontra
Sep 25, 2003, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by Zaid
Well Blair and his govt have already lost a huge amount of credibility.

If ( a very big if) this is true, what exactly did Blair get out of it in order to get him to go along? I mean its not as if British companies have gained much from the war.

IMO, Blair embarked on a mission to win for himself personally the status of world statesman and international peace-broker, who would be remembered in history as one of the worlds greatest modern-day leaders.

His aim was to reign back the worst excesses of Bush, form the bridge between the US and europe, and force the US into brokering the peace talks in the middle east by rapping the knuckles of Israel.

If it has gone to plan his position in the history books would have been assured. As it was, Bush cynically used the UK support for the war for his own ends and tossed aside any pledges made to Blair along the way, leaving him isolated and looking rather foolish.

One must remember that before this whole episode Blair had been the teflon man of UK politics. He'd managed to brush aside all scandals and ineptitudes and win a record second term for a Labour government with a record majority, and with huge popularity ratings with the British public. It's easy to see how delusions of invincibility could have grown, especially in the light of the fawning adoration he receives in the US.

In my opinion this is the stuff of Greek tragedy; a man caught up in his own popularity urged on to action with consequences far beyond his conception. The risk taker taking one last huge gamble, and losing the lot!