Hype seen in weapons rhetoric

[Khephra]

In building the case for war in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said there was ''no doubt'' that Saddam Hussein ''has chemical weapons stocks.'' A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report, produced in the same period, stated flatly that there was ''no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling'' such weapons.

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that the administration knew Hussein ''has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.'' A contemporaneous CIA report to Congress was more cautious, saying ''Baghdad may be attempting to acquire materials that could aid'' in developing nuclear weapons.

The controversy that has erupted over the administration's rationale for going to war has centered largely on a sentence in the State of the Union speech, delivered by President Bush in January, that said Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. The White House now concedes that the allegation was based on flimsy evidence and should not have been included in the address.

A close review of available intelligence reports, along with interviews with current and former defense and intelligence officials, indicates that senior administration officials frequently characterized the threat that Iraq posed to the United States more starkly than did US intelligence analyses.

more................................

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/201/nation/Hype_seen_in_weapons_rhetoric+.shtml

[Vichyssoise]

1. The PM steadfastly

reiterates his intelligence claims Bush was referring to in the SOTU speech. Perhaps Bush was untrue at other junctures, but the infamous sentence in the SOTU was not an occasion of untruth. It is very important, that while Bush's falsehoods are identified, it is also critical that we are truthful as to the specifics of every detail of our allegations lest it be used against us at a later time. Always wanting to be prudent, mate. That's me MO.

[janx]

2. The 16-word sentence was an occasion of DECEPTION.

Taking a literal truth and using it deceptively as hyperbolic rhetoric is a clear deception and yes, ultimately an overt lie. Bush included that line hoping that the American people would think he believed it.

If you would like to get literal about it, we can parse the sentence, because even literally it was a lie. The British didn't "learn" anything, because by default one cannot "learn" something that isn't true. Bush therefore asserted that it was true.

But it's just the beginning, and no doubt there will be a hell of lot more in the parsing department down the line...


Welcome to DU.

[TahitiNut]

3. "learned" vs. "said"

This choice of words clearly indicates an agreement with allegations, an agreement inferentially stemming from some implicit validation. There is and was no validation. None. Sheer pretense.

Even "said" would've been insufficient. "Alleged" would've been appropriately accurate and ethical.

Let's look at synonyms for the sense of "learn" employed:
ascertained, caught on, detected, determined, dug up, discerned, found out, gained, gathered, heard, saw, smoked out, stumbled upon, tripped over, tumbled to, uncovered, understood, unearthed

In every sense, the veracity of the object is implied.

The role taken by the Bushoilini madministration was deceptively prosecutorial, not adjudicatory.

They lied.

Repeatedly.

[Mountainman]

4. Prudent to the point of spreading falsehoods yourself

You can't learn about something that didn't happen. And you can't say that someone learned about something that didn't happen. The whole statement about Iraqi weapons was a lie. If you want to defend a lie go right ahead, we are looking for truth. Since you don't have any then we won't look your way.

[4dsc]

5. Good read here..

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0630selling.htm


The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty

[janx]

10. That's quite an article, and a textbook case with

a timeline. Thanks for posting it.

[stevebreeze]

6. the real point being lost is it is not JUST 16 words

It is clear that they lied repeatedly about the Alu tubes. It is clear that Iraq was NO THREAT to the US. If they had WMD's why didn't they use them? Nothing this misadministration says is credible.
:kick:

[jmcgowanjm]

7. USNews-the plot thickens

U.S. News has learned that a document prepared by Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, at almost exactly the same time as the State of the Union address omitted any reference to Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger. The chronology of events is puzzling--even to insiders: On Saturday, January 25, just three days before the address, officials gathered in the White House Situation Room to vet intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and its links to terrorism. Libby made the presentation. After several hours, Libby summarized the conclusions of the meeting and turned them into a written case for war against Saddam.
(more)

[jmcgowanjm]

8. The puzzler

Libby's document was sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell; it was intended as the "script" for his presentation to the United Nations on February 5. The puzzler: The charge that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was not in Libby's paper. Why not? "The agency had so discredited it," says one participant, "they didn't want to bring it up."

[jmcgowanjm]

9. Baker-Libby-Cheney-Energy Policy-PNAC-Iraq WMD-IRAQ oil

One of the most striking facts about the national report is that it makes 110 references to California’s energy crisis, which was ninety-nine more than the Baker report makes. Clearly, someone in the White House needed an impressive energy crisis to tout. How unfortunate that the crisis cited was fraudulently induced. Like the Baker report, the national report states, “The California experience demonstrates the crippling effect that electricity shortages and black outs can have on a state or region.”

the author is actually making an admission here: he is admitting the energy crisis in California can’t be replicated in other states because certain market means do not exist in the other states. How could the author know this? The writer of that sentence would have to be someone intimately involved in the California system; know the real cause of the state’s crisis; and be familiar with all the other state rules and market infrastructures.

The only sensible reading left to us is that the flawed rules allowed power brokers to manipulate the system. But how could our author and his administration editors know this to be true without being in collusion with the wrongdoers? If they were not in collusion they would have reported the crime. But if they remained silent when they had a duty to report or stop the commission of a crime, they became accessories.
http://www.yuricareport.com/PoliticalAnalysis/FraudinWhiteHouse.htm


 

[sam sarrha]

11. price manipulation....for california shortage

Gas pipeline owners here in el paso, tx at the time raised natural gas transmission price rates 2,800% after deregulation and CA generation plants were shut down for schedualed maintence at a time PEAK seasonal demands. there was also some story about electrical transmission routing problems that never have happened before or after. this was all set up by the neocons to justify the recall of Davis and the Fascist take over of californias goverment..probably to deliberately bankrupt the state to steal the pension program... the neocons hate pensions, SSI or any 'socialist' program that takes money out of the pockets of their gods, the richest 1%.