Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
Norman Bates
New member
Bullet Points
The primary points in the Bush opinion's message on Iraq are easy to summarize. Each point has been carefully "focused" to appeal in a misleading fashion to legitimate public aspirations for peace, safety, freedom, human rights and democracy:
"Iraq is in cahoots with international terrorism."
The Bush administration has not hesitated to use outright disinformation to deliver this message. In December, CBS 60 Minutes debunked an often-mentioned report that hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague prior to the deadly attacks on September 11. Despite the absence of evidence that the meeting took place, administration officials as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney continue to repeat it.[19]
The attempt to fabricate links between Iraq and al-Qaeda also lay at the heart of the scandal in England in February following the disclosure that much of its published dossier on Iraq was actually plagiarized from the Internet.[20] Touted as an analysis by the British MI6 spy agency, the document was actually cobbled together by junior aides to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's top spin doctor.[21] Several pages had been cut and pasted, right down to the typographical errors, from the Internet version of an article by a post-doctorate student.[22]
The dossier was "obviously part of the Prime Minister's propaganda campaign," said Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies. "The intelligence services were not involved - I've had two people phoning me today to say, 'Look, we had nothing to do with it.'" [23]
In fact, a leaked report from British intelligence explicitly contradicts the government's official position, saying there "are no known links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." [24]
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Here, too, the Bush administration's claims are contradicted by prominent analysts within the Western intelligence community. The only reason that this claim continues to circulate is that the administration has been relentless about demanding "message consistency" from government officials.
"Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency," reported Robert Dreyfuss in the December 16, 2002 issue of American Prospect. "Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war." [25]
In July, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), who houses the Senate Intelligence Committee, was so baffled by the contradictory assessments of Iraq coming from different agencies that he asked the CIA to come up with a report on the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction. The CIA concluded that the likelihood of Hussein using such weapons was "low" for the "foreseeable future." [26] However, the CIA analysis added, "Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. ... Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." [27] In other words, the Bush administration's own push for war is creating the possibility of turning "Iraqi-sponsored terrorism" into yet another self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Iraq brutalizes its own people."
There is no question that this is true, but nevertheless, the Administration has resorted to lying about Iraqi atrocities. During the buildup to Operation Desert Storm in 1990, the first Bush administration, working closely with the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, circulated false claims that Iraqi soldiers had bayoneted pregnant women and pulled newborn infants from hospital incubators, leaving the babies to die on the cold hospital floor.
Why tell lies about Iraqi atrocities when there are so many true stories? One reason is that many of Saddam Hussein's worst crimes were committed with U.S. support, both before and after Operation Desert Storm. In the 1980s, Donald Rumsfeld and other officials in the first Bush administration treated Hussein as a valued ally while he gassed Kurds and launched human wave assaults against Iran. Rather than face these realities about Iraqi human rights violations, the White House prefers to dwell on false stories or on stories that are selectively told to omit mention of the U.S. role.
The National Security Archive, a nonprofit research institute on international affairs, recently published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, including a photo and video footage of Donald Rumsfeld personally shaking Hussein's hand. More important than the handshake, the documents show that the United States supported Saddam even though he had invaded neighboring Iran and even though the United States knew that Iraq had long-range nuclear aspirations, abused the human rights of its citizens, and used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. [28] As the Washington Post reported in December 2002, "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." [29]
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
"This is not a war at all; it's a "liberation" movement."
This message is embodied in very name of the latest White House PR front group, the " Committee for the Liberation of Iraq." However, this message too is contradicted by many opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The Iraqi people have learned through bitter experience not to trust U.S. promises of "liberation. During Desert Storm, the Bush administration called on the Kurds to rise up and rebel, but when they did, realpolitik took precedence over morality. The United States may hate Saddam Hussein, but it has no desire to see Kurdish aspirations realized, particularly when Turkey, an important U.S. ally, regards the Kurds as dangerous terrorists. The Kurds, who made the mistake of taking the Bush administration at its word, were shocked when it pulled back and allowed Hussein's regime to brutally crush their uprising. There is no reason to expect a different result this time. As preparations for war neared completion in January 2003, "American officials angered representatives of the Iraqi opposition, much of which is Shia and Kurdish, at a meeting in Ankara, Turkey by revealing that America planned a military government for Iraq but would keep in place most of the Sunni establishment that had served President Hussein."[30]
"We're not against Muslims."
Officially, the Bush administration has taken pains to insist that Islam is a "religion of peace." The Council of American Muslims for Understanding, an organization created by the U.S. State Department, has been trying to impress Muslims abroad. It has a website and a glossy brochure titled "Muslim Life in America." However, these words contrast the anti-Muslim vitriol coming from Bush's strongest supporters in the conservative movement. On February 1, 2003, the Conservative Political Action Committee held its annual meeting in Washington while vendors at exhibition booths sold Islamaphobic paraphernalia such as a bumper sticker that said, "No Muslims - No Terrorism." [31]
During the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Bush was forced to issue a statement disavowing anti-Islamic comments by prominent conservative Christian leaders. No words, however, can alter the fact that prominent Christian supporters of the president, including his advisors, regard Muslims as "worse than Hitler" (to use the words of Pat Robertson, whose Christian Coalition was a key source of voters that got Bush elected). [32] [33]
A February 15, 2003 CCA conference was dubbed an "Islamaphobic hate-fest" by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Speakers included Daniel Pipes, who says "increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims will present true dangers to American Jews," along with Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily.com, who says "Islam has been at war with the West, with Christianity, with Judaism … ever since the days of Muhammad." Another speaker at the forum, Boston Herald columnist Don Feder, railed against Islam, characterizing it as a religion which, "throughout its 1,400-year history, has lent itself well to fanaticism, terrorism, mass murder, oppression and conversion by the sword." [34]
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Muslims in other countries are skeptical when the Bush administration talks of peace, love, and understanding. In December, Charlotte Beers launched an advertising campaign in Arab countries. Titled " Shared Values," the campaign was to showcase the religious tolerance and friendly treatment of Muslims in the United States. The campaign was abruptly terminated after a month, however, when several Arab governments refused to run the ads and focus groups said the ads left them cold. [35]
This is only an excerpt from http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Weapons_of_mass_deception
The primary points in the Bush opinion's message on Iraq are easy to summarize. Each point has been carefully "focused" to appeal in a misleading fashion to legitimate public aspirations for peace, safety, freedom, human rights and democracy:
"Iraq is in cahoots with international terrorism."
The Bush administration has not hesitated to use outright disinformation to deliver this message. In December, CBS 60 Minutes debunked an often-mentioned report that hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague prior to the deadly attacks on September 11. Despite the absence of evidence that the meeting took place, administration officials as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney continue to repeat it.[19]
The attempt to fabricate links between Iraq and al-Qaeda also lay at the heart of the scandal in England in February following the disclosure that much of its published dossier on Iraq was actually plagiarized from the Internet.[20] Touted as an analysis by the British MI6 spy agency, the document was actually cobbled together by junior aides to Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's top spin doctor.[21] Several pages had been cut and pasted, right down to the typographical errors, from the Internet version of an article by a post-doctorate student.[22]
The dossier was "obviously part of the Prime Minister's propaganda campaign," said Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies. "The intelligence services were not involved - I've had two people phoning me today to say, 'Look, we had nothing to do with it.'" [23]
In fact, a leaked report from British intelligence explicitly contradicts the government's official position, saying there "are no known links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network." [24]
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
Here, too, the Bush administration's claims are contradicted by prominent analysts within the Western intelligence community. The only reason that this claim continues to circulate is that the administration has been relentless about demanding "message consistency" from government officials.
"Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency," reported Robert Dreyfuss in the December 16, 2002 issue of American Prospect. "Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war." [25]
In July, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), who houses the Senate Intelligence Committee, was so baffled by the contradictory assessments of Iraq coming from different agencies that he asked the CIA to come up with a report on the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction. The CIA concluded that the likelihood of Hussein using such weapons was "low" for the "foreseeable future." [26] However, the CIA analysis added, "Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. ... Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." [27] In other words, the Bush administration's own push for war is creating the possibility of turning "Iraqi-sponsored terrorism" into yet another self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Iraq brutalizes its own people."
There is no question that this is true, but nevertheless, the Administration has resorted to lying about Iraqi atrocities. During the buildup to Operation Desert Storm in 1990, the first Bush administration, working closely with the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, circulated false claims that Iraqi soldiers had bayoneted pregnant women and pulled newborn infants from hospital incubators, leaving the babies to die on the cold hospital floor.
Why tell lies about Iraqi atrocities when there are so many true stories? One reason is that many of Saddam Hussein's worst crimes were committed with U.S. support, both before and after Operation Desert Storm. In the 1980s, Donald Rumsfeld and other officials in the first Bush administration treated Hussein as a valued ally while he gassed Kurds and launched human wave assaults against Iran. Rather than face these realities about Iraqi human rights violations, the White House prefers to dwell on false stories or on stories that are selectively told to omit mention of the U.S. role.
The National Security Archive, a nonprofit research institute on international affairs, recently published a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, including a photo and video footage of Donald Rumsfeld personally shaking Hussein's hand. More important than the handshake, the documents show that the United States supported Saddam even though he had invaded neighboring Iran and even though the United States knew that Iraq had long-range nuclear aspirations, abused the human rights of its citizens, and used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. [28] As the Washington Post reported in December 2002, "The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." [29]
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
"This is not a war at all; it's a "liberation" movement."
This message is embodied in very name of the latest White House PR front group, the " Committee for the Liberation of Iraq." However, this message too is contradicted by many opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime.
The Iraqi people have learned through bitter experience not to trust U.S. promises of "liberation. During Desert Storm, the Bush administration called on the Kurds to rise up and rebel, but when they did, realpolitik took precedence over morality. The United States may hate Saddam Hussein, but it has no desire to see Kurdish aspirations realized, particularly when Turkey, an important U.S. ally, regards the Kurds as dangerous terrorists. The Kurds, who made the mistake of taking the Bush administration at its word, were shocked when it pulled back and allowed Hussein's regime to brutally crush their uprising. There is no reason to expect a different result this time. As preparations for war neared completion in January 2003, "American officials angered representatives of the Iraqi opposition, much of which is Shia and Kurdish, at a meeting in Ankara, Turkey by revealing that America planned a military government for Iraq but would keep in place most of the Sunni establishment that had served President Hussein."[30]
"We're not against Muslims."
Officially, the Bush administration has taken pains to insist that Islam is a "religion of peace." The Council of American Muslims for Understanding, an organization created by the U.S. State Department, has been trying to impress Muslims abroad. It has a website and a glossy brochure titled "Muslim Life in America." However, these words contrast the anti-Muslim vitriol coming from Bush's strongest supporters in the conservative movement. On February 1, 2003, the Conservative Political Action Committee held its annual meeting in Washington while vendors at exhibition booths sold Islamaphobic paraphernalia such as a bumper sticker that said, "No Muslims - No Terrorism." [31]
During the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Bush was forced to issue a statement disavowing anti-Islamic comments by prominent conservative Christian leaders. No words, however, can alter the fact that prominent Christian supporters of the president, including his advisors, regard Muslims as "worse than Hitler" (to use the words of Pat Robertson, whose Christian Coalition was a key source of voters that got Bush elected). [32] [33]
A February 15, 2003 CCA conference was dubbed an "Islamaphobic hate-fest" by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Speakers included Daniel Pipes, who says "increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims will present true dangers to American Jews," along with Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily.com, who says "Islam has been at war with the West, with Christianity, with Judaism … ever since the days of Muhammad." Another speaker at the forum, Boston Herald columnist Don Feder, railed against Islam, characterizing it as a religion which, "throughout its 1,400-year history, has lent itself well to fanaticism, terrorism, mass murder, oppression and conversion by the sword." [34]
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Muslims in other countries are skeptical when the Bush administration talks of peace, love, and understanding. In December, Charlotte Beers launched an advertising campaign in Arab countries. Titled " Shared Values," the campaign was to showcase the religious tolerance and friendly treatment of Muslims in the United States. The campaign was abruptly terminated after a month, however, when several Arab governments refused to run the ads and focus groups said the ads left them cold. [35]
This is only an excerpt from http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Weapons_of_mass_deception
