Face it, some of you were duped

[Razorsharp]

When Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council to justify a need to invade Iraq, his “justifications” consisted of aerial photographs of various buildings, bunkers and vehicles and how they relate to the existance of Iraq’s continued WMD program.

Neo-conservative pundits and their “proles” (of all political persuasions) were falling all over themselves applauding and fawning over Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “brilliant” address that “laid it on the line”, and left no doubt to the existence of WMD.

And the majority of Americans embraced his words as though the government would never lie.

Even members of this forum were sounding dire alarms.

“Sadam has WMD!”
“We have to invade now!”
“He’ll give them to terrorists!”

Then it was revealed that Colin Powell’s information regarding Iraq’s WMD was gleaned from a British intelligence report. Problem is, the so-called “British intelligence report” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) was plagarized from a California graduate student’s thesis.

Then it came to light that some of the documents Colin Powell referred to to make his case that Iraq was engaged in a nuclear weapons program were forgeries.

Yet, the “Neo-conservatives” were not to be denied their “war”. It was almost Orwellian in the way that the “proles” willingly embraced the “war is peace” doctrine.

Let’s revisit the saga of Private Jessie Lynch.

It was reported that the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, to which Pvt. Lynch was assigned was “ambushed” by Iraqi forces. It was further reported that the “ambush” took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.

Now hold on a minute. “Ambushed”? After taking a wrong turn?

Pvt. Jessie Lynch’s actions were trumpeted as “heroically” and “fiercely” “fighting to the death” while being both shot and stabbed, and only stopped fighting after running out of ammunition. (Well, who wouldn’t.)

Then it came to light, while being held in an Iraqi hospital, that Pvt. Lynch was neither shot or stabbed. And, rather than being “repeatedly slapped” and interrogated, (as members of this fourm desperately parroted) witnesses describe her hospital stay as “VIP treatment”.

Now, serious questions are starting to be asked about the “daring rescue” of Pvt. Lynch.

It is beginning to be reported that efforts were made to return Pvt Lynch to Coalition forces prior to her “rescue”, but the hospital ambulance carrying Pvt. Lynch was turned away by Coalition forces gunfire.

Although there were no Republican Guard at the hospital and no resistance was put up, special forces still found it necessary to go in with “flashbangs”, live fire and the kicking in of doors.

Further assessment is yet to be ascertained, but the media crafted image of “hero” will be hard to let go of. But then, tales of Pvt. Lynch’s “heroics” have faded rather fast from the media.

Face it, some of you have been duped.

Beware of what oozes from the “telescreen”.

“Big Brother” does NOT have your best interests at heart.

G. C. Collinsworth

[december]

Time will tell regarding the WMDs, but the Jessica Lynch rescue “expose” was full of prunes. The BBC apparently based their original story on two Iraqi doctors, who had an interest in favorably portraying their treatment of Lynch. They subsequently withdrew some of their allegations. Others who were happy to attack Bush and the US picked up the original BBC version.

Back on May 7 ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings belittled the military effort to rescue POW Jessica Lynch from a Nasiriyah hospital, focusing on how the U.S. forces knew they would face no opposition, unnecessarily frightened the staff and caused a lot of damage, specifically by breaking door knobs.

ABC’s story was prompted by a Toronto Star story which suggested that the presence of video cameras with the rescuers suggested it was all a Pentagon propaganda effort. A few weeks later, the BBC checked in with a documentary accusing the U.S. forces of firing off blanks in the hospital, a sure sign it was all staged for the cameras to provide great propaganda video of military heroics.

But now, several week later, NBC’s Jim Avila and crew have gone to Nasiriyah and discovered that the truth seems to lie closer to the story initially conveyed by the U.S. military than to the anti-military tales spun by ABC and the BBC.

On Friday’s NBC Nightly News, Avila reported that hospital staff “say the so-called blanks were actually flash-bang grenades used to stun and frighten hospital workers and potential resistance. No bullets or blanks were fired inside the hospital. And the Americans had every reason to expect trouble. Hospital workers confirm the Iraqi military used the basement as a headquarters.” A doctor told Avila that “what he calls the big heads of the Iraqi army left just six hours before the raid.” Avila added that “the Iraqis told NBC News the American soldiers’ behavior was humane.” For instance, when one of the physicians said the handcuffs “hurt and they were too tight,” the “soldiers immediately loosened them.”

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030603.asp#4

[tagos]

Allow me to paraphrase December et al to save them the bother

“No it isn’t, na na na na na, we can’t hear you, say it to the hand say it to the hand! Besides, we won, USA, USA!”

[Mullinator]

I always find it interesting when people take what they read as the gospel truth. The funny thing is, is that it goes both ways. For instance, a Republican watches Powell’s evidence and whole-heartedly believes it. Later, reports that Private Lynch’s rescue was faked appear. All of a sudden, anti-war people take that as the gospel truth.

In the end, it’s probably best to read both versions of a story, let time pass before making an asinine statement of belief one way or the other, and realize that the true story probably has a little of each side in it.

[dantheman]

*Originally posted by Mullinator *
**I always find it interesting when people take what they read as the gospel truth. The funny thing is, is that it goes both ways. For instance, a Republican watches Powell’s evidence and whole-heartedly believes it. Later, reports that Private Lynch’s rescue was faked appear. All of a sudden, anti-war people take that as the gospel truth.

In the end, it’s probably best to read both versions of a story, let time pass before making an asinine statement of belief one way or the other, and realize that the true story probably has a little of each side in it. **

I believe you. You’re right.

:smack: Oops, when will I learn . . .

[UnwrittenNocturne]

I am going to withhold judgement on both counts (Private Lynch & the WMD issue) and await further evidence.

The WMD issue is not one that ever affected my support for the war anyway. For me personally (despite it not really being sold that way) it was always going to be about getting rid of a dictatorship. I doubt even the most ‘peaceful’ (did you see some of the peaceful protests?) protestor could deny the existence of M. Husseins mass graves, the culture of torture and murder that existed in Iraq prior to this.

Shame we lacked the fortitude to do the same in other places. Like, say, Cambodia in the 70’s (Chomsky’s support of Pol Pot aside - but that is a seperate issue), or Burma right now.

[Rooster]

I read the original Toronto Star story, and it was not slanted to “prove” a fake rescue. If I remember correctly, the whole point of the story was, as Mullinator said, “get both sides of the story.”
The story was basically a refutation of the unbridaled cheerleading coming from much of the US media.

As for being duped…

The spin from the Whitehouse and the Pentagon prior to the invasion was absolutely and without question that the WMD were the primary reason. Anything else was incidental.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**When Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council to justify a need to invade Iraq, his “justifications” consisted of aerial photographs of various buildings, bunkers and vehicles and how they relate to the existance of Iraq’s continued WMD program.
**

In part. Also on a radio intercept of a conversation between an Iraqi colonel and a brigadier general Nov. 26, 2002.

The colonel worked at a facility slated for a visit by U.N. inspector Mohammed El Baradei. He was worried because he had a “modified” vehicle that Iraq did not want inspectors to see.

“We have a modified vehicle,” said the colonel. “. . . What do we say if one of them sees it?”

“You didn’t get a modified,” said the general. “You don’t have a modified?”

“By God, I have one,” said the colonel.

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**
Then it was revealed that Colin Powell’s information regarding Iraq’s WMD was gleaned from a British intelligence report. Problem is, the so-called “British intelligence report” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) was plagarized from a California graduate student’s thesis.
**

Well, no, not exactly.

[

“I went out to the CIA, and I spent four days and four nights going over everything that they had as holdings,” Powell told reporters last week. “And everything I presented on the 5th of February, I can tell you, there was good sourcing for, was not politicized, it was solid information that was being presented to us for our consideration for that briefing, not by political appointees, but by the analysts who were responsible for it.”

](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20030604.shtml)

I will only add to december’s post the undoubted fact that the Iraqis were using soldiers in civilian dress to attack the US soldiers. To accuse the US of staging something because, with 20/20 hindsight, we now know what the true situation is, is more than a little unfair.

Regards,
Shodan

[Captain_Amazing]

Just out of curiousity, Razorsharp, could you define what a neoconservative is to you?

[Avalonian]

I was (and still am) against the war in Iraq. I’m far from a Bush supporter, and even farther from a neocon.

But I’ll be the first to admit it, I was initially “duped” by Powell’s UN address. I remember when I watched it (and I could probably dig up a contemporary SD thread where I said as much), that I felt he had not proved the case of a link between Al Qaeda and Hussein’s regime – that was a very weak point of his presentation. However, the evidence he presented for WMD in Iraq was compelling, and for the first time I found myself thinking that maybe a war isn’t such a bad thing. I had respect for Powell, and I believed what he was saying.

I did, however, keep watching… and when news broke of the sources of Powell’s report I paid careful attention. Much of the information he presented at the UN was either outdated or falsely constructed, or both. Later that week, I saw Powell on “Meet the Press,” where he was confronted with the new information about the sources of his report. His only response: “That doesn’t change anything.”

Color me angry, at this point, with a shade of disappointment for Powell. My respect for him fell several notches that Sunday morning. The fact that the information being used to justify a pre-emptive war on foreign soil is old, plagiarized, and possibly inaccurate doesn’t change anything? What world do these people live in?

Also, I really felt like I had been duped at this point. Powell had presented his information as if it were the most up-to-date, accurate informtion available. Instead, it was cobbled together from old, inaccurate sources. It felt like the Bush Administration was grasping at straws to “sell” the war to the American public, and to the world. Frankly, it still feels that way. As time goes on and no WMD are found, I get more and more angry about it.

So, yes, some of us were duped by Powell, because he was a man we respected. That doesn’t mean we stayed duped.

As to the story of PFC Lynch, that always seemed doctored to me. Though I have doubts about the extent of the BBC report, I have no doubts whatsoever that Lynch’s rescue was crafted, certain elements exaggerated and others played down, to play well on American televisions that evening. I’m glad they got her out, but it was a media event from the beginning, exploited to its full advantage. I don’t really consider myself “duped” on that score, anyway.

But yeah, Powell got me. And I’m mad as hell about it.

[zwaldd]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**Face it, some of you have been duped.

Beware of what oozes from the “telescreen”.

“Big Brother” does NOT have your best interests at heart. **

All that to conclude that some people bought the WMD rhetoric, you shouldn’t believe everything on TV, and Big Brother doesn’t have your best interests at heart? Weak, man. Where’s the controversy?

[Dissonance]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**It was reported that the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, to which Pvt. Lynch was assigned was “ambushed” by Iraqi forces. It was further reported that the “ambush” took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.

Now hold on a minute. “Ambushed”? After taking a wrong turn?
**

So are you saying that it is impossible to be ambushed if you are lost or are you implying some deep, dark conspiracy? Is there some word for coming under fire unexpectedly from a hostile force that I’m unaware of for use in circumstances when one is lost?

Pvt. Jessie Lynch’s actions were trumpeted as “heroically” and “fiercely” “fighting to the death” while being both shot and stabbed, and only stopped fighting after running out of ammunition. (Well, who wouldn’t.)

Rambo/Red Dawn fantasies and insane directives from der Feuhrer aside, very few engagements are actually fought to the last man (or in this case woman) and the last round. That said, I don’t doubt that this was tacked on as a throwaway bit of propaganda to make it sound more heroic.

"Big Brother" does NOT have your best interests at heart.

Having read other threads of your’s; are you sure you don’t mean the NWO, Razor?

[Razorsharp]

*Originally posted by zwaldd *
**All that to conclude that some people bought the WMD rhetoric, you shouldn’t believe everything on TV, and Big Brother doesn’t have your best interests at heart? Weak, man. Where’s the controversy? **

Uh, that would have been in the first Ninty percent of the OP.

What is “weak” is your pathetic little empty rebuttal.

[Razorsharp]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**Just out of curiousity, Razorsharp, could you define what a neoconservative is to you? **

A “neoconservative” would be one who, traditionally, was not of the conservative persuasion, but who is new to conservatism and uses conservatism to push an agenda that is traditionally un-conservative.

[Spavined_Gelding]

It seems to me that our problem here lies in a refusal to acknowledge that we are dealing with question on which reasonable people can differ.

That the maintenance column walked into a hostile road block and got shot up is beyond dispute, based on what the press has told me. Calling the incident an ambush may be a little much if you do not appreciate that an ambush is often a matter of opportunity and fortuitous ambush is a common occurrence in combat—you get shot at by people you did not know were there and you were, in the parlance of the press, ambushed, even though “meeting engagement” may be a more accurate description.

More important is the discussion of the pretext and justification for the war. In the public pronouncements made by my government and its sympathizers the pretext and justification was:
First, that Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease fire agreement that ended Gulf I and that steps had to be taken to bring Iraq into compliance. That was submitted to the UN Security Counsel which took action that the Bush Administration did not think sufficiently strenuous and punitive.

Second, the US claimed the right and obligation to act as the UN’s agent, albeit, unauthorized, to enforce the cease fire agreement.
Third, the US took the position that Iraq had or shortly would have massive quantities of chemical and biological agents and some nuclear weapons that it would shortly surely unleash on the US and its friends.

Fourth, the US claimed that Iraq was in some undefined way connected with the 9/11 catastrophe.

Fifth, the US claimed that Iraq was about to surely deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to terrorist, if not to the 9/11 people then to anti-Israel terrorists.

Sixth, and only on the very eve of the war, did the Bush Administration focus on the nature and character of the Iraqi government, and start saying things like Saddam better be on the next stage out of Dodge.

If the above is not a fair representation of the main points of the US government’s pretext and justification for the invasion, I will be happy to listen to someone else’s version.

The problem with all this is that we are now receiving information that indicates that the information on which the contentions that Iraq had significant amounts of chemical and biological agents and was on the verge of nuclear weapons was not all that reliable and to a great extent was coming from people who had a dog in the fight and were prepared to tell us that Saddam had two or three babies for breakfast, poached, if that would get the US to invade the country.

That no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have yet been found makes the US claims seem all the more dubious and exposes the US to persuasive arguments that the US did or should have recognized that the information it was relying on was not reliable, and that the US was determined to invade Iraq no matter what the facts were because an invasion advanced some interest of the US, come hell or high water. Without banned weapons or reliable information of banned weapons, the pretexts base on them are pretty well blown full of holes.

This leaves support of terrorism and brutal dictatorship.

So far, other than financial support for Palestinian guerillas, I have not seen anything persuasive that indicated Iraq was actively supporting international terrorism. If there is anything solid, I would like to hear about it.

As far as Iraq being run by a brutal dictator is concerned, and no matter who may thing that the elimination of a brutal dictatorship is a good thing, the fact remains that the fact that Lower Slobovia has a brutal dictator is of itself no fair bases for going to war with Lower Slobovia. By the brutal dictator standard there are any number of countries the US could conceivably take it upon its self to invade in order to make the world a better place, starting with some of our dear friends from the Cold War era.

What the brutal dictator pretext does is essentially restore the principal of right makes right to international respectability. That can’t be a good thing.

[FisherQueen]

I think it might be a long time before we learn the complete truth about the action in Iraq, which I think is probably somewhere between the two viewpoints discussed here.

But it is starting to look like there aren’t any WMD’s in Iraq, and knowing that Bush had a bone to pick with Iraq when he took office, I’m pretty uncomfortable with my nation’s actions in the past year.

[smiling_bandit]

Fortunately, I never really cared about WMD’s. As far as I am concerned, eradicating Saddam was a simple and effective way to push the new world order into the open, making the political realignments possible, and one step in the long term plan of crushing Islamic terrorism into the dust, along with a good portion ogf the sick and rotting root of radical Islamic culture.

[Spavined_Gelding]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**Fortunately, I never really cared about WMD’s. As far as I am concerned, eradicating Saddam was a simple and effective way to push the new world order into the open, making the political realignments possible, and one step in the long term plan of crushing Islamic terrorism into the dust, along with a good portion ogf the sick and rotting root of radical Islamic culture. **

In other words, Might Makes Right. We don’t like 'em, we bomb 'em.

If you will excuse me, my neighbors keep chichens in their back yard and I’v got to go burn their house down as the first step in establishing a new neighborhood order, one free or the sick and rotting chicken raising culture.

Bah!

[NurseCarmen]

I feel that someday I will be supplied more information on the whole thing. What confuses me the most is President Bush’s immediate need to invade. I just can’t fathom that as an ego thing or a grudge thing. I suspect he was given information that we aren’t that made him want to fudge things along to get to an invasion sooner. At a great political expense. The majority of the public seemed to be happy with the “he must know more than me” sentiment. Now it’s coming out that he didn’t. So I’m left to wonder, was it possibly Bush who was duped here? Rumsfeld certainly seemed driven by convictions that we’ve not been given a basis for, was he possibly a driving force?

I don’t know who was duped, but it’s becoming clear that there was some fabricating going on. I think it will be years before even some of the true story begins to come out.

[MegaDave]

first, just because they have not found any WMD’s doesn’t in any way shape or form prove there were none, or that there still isn’t some. After 3 decades I could hide some WMD’s in my back yard that would be hard to find. So just because they haven’t done it quick enough for your taste, you think there aren’t any, which is kind of asinine.

Second, regarding PFC Lynch, yes the Iraqi Dr.'s supposedly say that they tried to take her back to the americans and were shot at, but first, they in no way conveyed to the American Military what they were doing, and this was at the point were false surrenders had already cost American lives, so in that situation, I would have shot at them as well. Also, every single Dr. spoken to at the hospital has admitted that the hospital where PFC Lynch was being held had been used by the Iraqi army as a HQ, and the American militarty had absolutly no way of knowing wether or not it still was. The whol mission was filmed, yes, but this is a VERY common occurance with these kinds of missions. The conflicting reports about the specifics of her capture are not any indication of a cover up, only that when you get your news from an active battlefield, it may not always be initially accurate.

You say that we are duped because we believe x, y, and z with no proof, then rather hypocritically, you believe x, y, and z when it has the bent that suits your purpose. We believe something that came from one of the highest ranking officials in the American Govnm’t and you believe the BBC who’s own reporters have publicly stated that they were pissed at the BBC for their decidedly ant-American stance (for instance reporting that there were many, many casulties and little advancement early in the war). So what is the difference between those of us that believe an elected officail, and you who beleives a news agency that is only one step away from becoming a tabloid?