# Did the Pentagon forge/lie about satellite photos at start of Gulf War 1? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 28, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522 "2004-09-28T17:37:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/1 "2004-09-28T17:37:38Z")
> [@](#): > > (b) There was a corollary fabrication that proved equally effective in garnering support in Congress for the war resolution in 1991. The White House claimed there were satellite photos showing Iraqi tanks and troops massing on the borders of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, threatening to invade Saudi Arabia. This fueled the campaign for war and frightened the Saudis into agreeing to cooperate fully with US military forces. > > On September 11, 1990, President George H. W. Bush, addressing a joint session of Congress, claimed “120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks have poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia.” But an enterprising journalist, Jean Heller, reported in the St. Petersburg Times on January 6, 1991 (a bare ten days before the Gulf War began) that commercial satellite photos taken on September 11, the day the president spoke, showed no sign of a massive buildup of Iraqi forces in Kuwait. When the Pentagon was asked to provide evidence to support the president’s claim, it refused to do so—and continues to refuse to this day. > > Interestingly, the national media in the US chose to ignore Heller’s story. Heller’s explanation: > > “I think part of the reason the story was ignored was that it was published too close to the start of the war. Second, and more importantly, I do not think that people wanted to hear that we might have been deceived. A lot of the reporters who have seen the story think it is dynamite, but the editors seem to have the attitude, ‘At this point, who cares?’” [http://www.veteransforpeace.org/EX\_CIA\_professional\_052503.htm](http://www.veteransforpeace.org/EX_CIA_professional_052503.htm) I heard this allegation (that the U.S. forged/lied about satellite photos showing Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border) on a radio program today, and a quick Google search turned this up. Anyone else heard this before? Is it likely true? ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/2 "2004-09-28T19:53:43Z")
I’ve heard about it before and here’s a 2002 [Christian Science Monitor](http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/inwarsomefacts.html) article with the same details. An interesting bit: > [@](#): > > “That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn’t exist,” Ms. Heller says. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis – offering to hold the story if proven wrong. > > The official response: “Trust us.” To this day, the Pentagon’s photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified. I can’t imagine why we shouldn’t trust Dick and friends. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/3 "2004-09-28T20:29:18Z")
Certainly fishy… but two points to consider: - No one will leave troops just baking in the desert, Iraqi troops were busy plundering and keeping Kuwaitis in control. - Once Iraqis got rolling its too late to protect Saudi Arabia. So either you send in troops or the Iraqis might be tempted to invade. Personally I doubt they would invade Saudi Arabia… but fine. ---
**Author:** ![micco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f8ce5/32.png) [@micco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micco)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/4 "2004-09-28T21:05:01Z")
I don’t have any evidence to support either position, but I think there are obvious flaws in the journalist’s study. Heller claims to have satellite photos which show nothing in the desert, so therefore nothing was in the desert. Did these photos cover the entire area in question? Were they of sufficient resolution and were they examined by analysts qualified to identify camouflaged positions? It’s a shame the Pentagon hasn’t released documentation to the contrary, but their refusal to do so does not necessarily prove Heller was right. It may just prove that they don’t want to identify the types and precision of the intelligence they have in the area. You know, my wife claims she saw a pretty bird in a tree outside the window, but I just looked and it wasn’t there, so she must be a dirty stinking liar. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/5 "2004-09-28T21:44:54Z")
I would have no difficulty believing there was a fabrication, nor that there was genuine satellite evidence. Unless/Until the correspondent releases the satellite photos that _he_ alleges prove there was no build-up (or the Pentagon releases theirs), this is simply a matter of “he said; they said”. We can’t even begin to assess whether the evidence was sufficeint to lend credence to either side, and our conclusion ends up being based on our preexisting beliefs. While have not yet found enough substantial evidence on this particular controversy to tell if this is what I jokingly call a “cavity resonator” (an empty space, like an echo chamber, than amplifies whatever comes in) such tactics have been used by both sides of many recent pro/anti Administration controversies, and have only served to polarize the nation by making each citizen believe that their views are incontrovertibly proven, when neither side actually is. This serves only to strengthen the leaders on both sides of the schism, without the messiness (and often embarrassments) that come from real world facts, which are often not clear cut – may cast light on other issues that they may not wish illuminated. I am sick of it. I get as angry at those who use casuistry, deceit, or misrepresentation to argue opinions I support as I do at those who use them to oppose my views. I’d actually be angrier at those who lie in support of my views, but, by definition, I think the other side is “wrong” to begin with. Has anyone seen an article, cite, or even a website with the actual satellite photos or other evidence in support of either the Administration or correspondent’s view? We may not be qualified photo recon analysts, but I think we can begin to decide if the volume and scope of the data is sufficient to support either side’s conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/6 "2004-09-28T21:50:23Z")
> [@](#): > > You know, my wife claims she saw a pretty bird in a tree outside the window, but I just looked and it wasn’t there, so she must be a dirty stinking liar. I think your questions are valid and deserve to be answered, but in fairness to your wife, a bird can fly away a lot quicker than 120,000 troops and 850 tanks possibly could. ---
**Author:** ![Crandolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7cd45c/32.png) [@Crandolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crandolph)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-pentagon-forge-lie-about-satellite-photos-at-start-of-gulf-war-1/266522/7 "2004-09-28T22:23:43Z")
Saudi Arabia’s much larger than Kuwait as has much larger oil reserves, as well as a more formidable military. No one would suprise Kuwait first and then attack SA later. This never made sense to me. Plus of course the Iraqis lay a historic claim (not debating the merits thereof here) to Kuwait and obviously not SA.